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: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 10:12:49 -0500

Mia Garlick wrote:
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.

I am skeptical that the phrase "including without limitation" can be read to put any limit on the licenses that CC can approve. I think my concern is that that phrase tries to have matters both ways. It's a restriction of compatibility to those licenses that really are equivalent, but it still wants to make CC's determination (rather than actual equivalence) the canonical indication of compatibility.

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?

One scenario is that CC approves a license that some people don't think really is equivalent. Consider the Evil Attribution ShareAlike License, which requires licensees to provides CC-style attribution, along with the phrase "Clubbing baby seals is fun." If CC puts Evil-BY-SA on the approved list for CC-BY-SA, and licensors start objecting, one of them might sue a licensee. The licensee will point to the compatibility clause and say that CC's determination controls, but the licensor will argue that the terms of Evil-BY-SA don't really have "the same purpose, meaning and effect" and therefore that CC's approval was wrong and should be ignored.

The extra language creates an ambiguity; the court will have to decide whether CC's approvals always control, or sometimes don't. The current language waffles on that question; it seems to say that CC's approval controls, but then there's this extra "including without limitation" language that you say does restrict CC.

Could the language in the license read something more like:

"Creative Commons Compatible License" means a license that is listed at
http://creativecommons.org/compatiblelicenses that (i) explicitly permits the relicensing of derivatives of works made available under that license under this License, and (ii) has been approved by Creative Commons as being essentially equivalent to this License. Creative Commons will approve those and only those licenses that, in its judgment, contain terms that have the same purpose, meaning and effect as the License Elements of this License."?

I still have misgivings about including the second sentence in the license, but this approach makes clearer that it's a statement about CC's intentions, rather than a condition that's part of the license agreement between the parties to the license. "In its judgment" or some similar discretionary language also seems clearer than "including without limitation" in indicating that CC must consider the question in the first instance, but that its decision is final.

James





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page