Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Terry Hancock <hancock AT anansispaceworks.com>]

Mia Garlick wrote:
> Historically the CC licenses included a warranty (version 1.0) but  
> this was removed as part of versioning to Version 2.0 (see http:// 
> wiki.creativecommons.org/License_versions) and so consequently, it  
> was considered unfair to expressly exclude direct damages because  
> otherwise there would be no remedy for a warranty breach.  At the  
> time warranties were excluded, it was decided to again not to include  
> an express disclaimer of direct damages because of concern that it  
> would not be enforceable and/or was unnecessary because warranties  
> were now removed.

Okay, to clarify that a bit, am I correct in understanding:

Direct damages (probably?) can't occur because they would only result
from a promise made in the license, which is never made (no warranty).

> Anyone, including Berkeley is free to change the CC licenses - we do  
> not assert copyright in the licenses - but if any change is made to  
> the license, then it cannot be called a Creative Commons license; see  
> our policies page: http://creativecommons.org/policies.

ISTM that advising them to rewrite or write a new license is not such a
good idea. Using an "almost" CC license pretty much defeats the purpose
of using a standardized license in the first place, right?

Cheers,
Terry

-- 
Terry Hancock (hancock AT AnansiSpaceworks.com)
Anansi Spaceworks http://www.AnansiSpaceworks.com