Development of Creative Commons licenses

[James Grimmelmann <james AT grimmelmann.net>]

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