Development of Creative Commons licenses

[drew Roberts <zotz AT 100jamz.com>]

On Monday 12 February 2007 10:12 am, James Grimmelmann wrote:
> 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" 

I am not up to par right now, but wouldn't including but without limitatoin 
mean that those have to be true but they can apply other criteria whichthey 
have not listed?

> 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.

snip...
>
> 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."?

This would force them to approve all licenses that meet these terms even if 
they have other objections. I think that is what the including but without 
limitation language is meant to address. Naturally CC's representatives can 
speak for it.
>
> 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

all the best,

drew
-- 
(da idea man)