Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Mia Garlick <mia AT creativecommons.org>]

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