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: Mia Garlick <mia AT creativecommons.org>
  • 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 18:35:09 -0800

the statement is on the compatible licenses page in addition to being in the license. in relation to (b) — the language as included in both the page and the license does, imho, limit those licenses that CC can approve as compatible b/c CC can only approve a license as compatible which at least meets these conditions.

also, i think it's necessary to include it as a defined term for the sake of clarity and defined terms tend to get included in the Definitions section. subject to (f), none of the reasons given below are a reason to keep language out of the licenses if that language that assists and gives confidence to at least one if not both parties about the parameters of relicensing. in relation to (f), i don't understand how ambiguity arises. can you elaborate and give an example of a scenario in which a court would be called upon to decide this issue so that i can better understand the point?

On Feb 11, 2007, at 6:23 PM, James Grimmelmann wrote:

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
_______________________________________________
cc-licenses mailing list
cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page