Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - Re: [cc-licenses] Version 3.0 — It's Happening & With BY-SA Compatibility Language Too

cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: James Grimmelmann <james AT grimmelmann.net>
  • To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] Version 3.0 — It's Happening & With BY-SA Compatibility Language Too
  • Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 21:23:11 -0500

Mia Garlick wrote:
the purpose for including the criteria is so that people who use the license can know and feel some reassurance in the measures by which CC will be deeming licenses as compatible. also, it is important that the criteria be laid out so that those who are license stewards for potentially compatible licenses know what is required to be declared compatible.

These are certainly reasons to make the criteria public. But given that the language:
(a) Doesn't require CC to approve licenses that meet the two conditions;
(b) doesn't prevent CC from approving licenses that don't meet the two conditions;
(c) wouldn't be binding on CC in any event;
(d) expresses an intention that CC could express through other means, including without limitation on the compatible-licenses page;
(e) isn't intended to change the legal meaning of the license as between licensee and licensor; and
(f) creates ambiguity in the legal meaning of the license to the extent that a court gives it any weight --
why do these criteria need to be in the license, and not in some other public statement by CC?

If nothing else, why not put this language in the box at the top or the bottom of the license, where the text describes CC's role, rather than conditions that apply between licensor and licensee?

James




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page