Development of Creative Commons licenses

[MJ Ray <mjr AT phonecoop.coop>]

Mia Garlick wrote:
> [...] This still brings us to a 16 page  
> table of comments & responses....but if there are any that people  
> think have been missed or not adequately resolved, then please advise.

I finally used ps2ascii to read this pdf, so I apologise for any lost 
context through loss of fancy formatting.


On the decision reasons:

"This discussions took place at the Summit as the culmination of 
discussions that had occurred and concluded via the affiliate email 
list."

What is "the affiliate email list" please and are those conclusions 
visible in its archives?


"That the views of international project leads would be consulted prior 
to the release of the current drafts was signaled in the outline  posted 
to the list back in May
(https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/cclicenses/2006-May/003557.html)."

That URL is 404 Not Found.


[in reply to a request for the record of the rejections by international 
affiliates and how CC decision-making works]
"There is no record of the reasons other than the reasons stated in my 
blog post of August 9, 2006 (http://creativecommons.org/weblog/ 
entry/6017)."

So the Summit meeting has no minutes or anything?

I feel how CC decision-making works was missed by the above answer.



On the simple Scottish TPM-disabling wording:

"I'm not totally clear why this change is necessary -- I assume the 
inclusion of "have the intent of" in the Scottish license reflects the
wording of the applicable law in  Scotland."

I don't see why that would be the case, but IANAL.  I believe the 
applicable law is the CDPA http://www.jenkins-ip.com/patlaw/indextop.htm



On selected other concerns:

"Because CC licenses are not drafted for software [...]"

Does this mean that the CC licences will no longer be suitable for mp3s 
and other software files?


On some of the points, the lack of developers on TPM-requiring platforms 
speaking out seems to be advanced as reason to ignore the situation.  Is 
it really surprising that such developers are not posting to cc-licenses?


Regards,
-- 
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct