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: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 15:32:06 -0800

so i always appreciate feedback on how to draft things better, especially when we are trying to forge new ground...i guess though, that i am not convinced that the issues identified here warrant the changes suggested....my sense is that the objection is more a stylistic one to the phrase "including without limitation" .... than to the actual structure...but maybe i'm wrong...

i guess maybe it is good to briefly explain what CC is trying to do here — in short: we are ever hopeful that we can declare at least one license to be compatible with a CC license in the near future *but* we also want to version to 3.0. if we hold off versioning to 3.0, then it's bad because we have basic agreement on the changes and the changes are a good thing. alternately, we version to 3.0 and then have to version again just to enable compatibility when we all get so far that we can declare it. the mantra in our office is to try to version as few times as possible. in keeping with this mantra, we have decided to set up this structure to give us flexibility to enable compatibility external to license versioning. i think this is in everyone's interest. the challenge then becomes how to give everyone the confidence that CC is not going to randomly declare some licenses compatible that the community does not feel to truly be compatible. this is the reason for drafting in the two baseline conditions that must be satisfied prior to CC declaring compatibility. that said, however, we need to maintain flexibility (which really has to come down to CC's analysis and judgment because we are the ones who conduct a line-by-line assessment of potentially compatible licenses and engage in internal debate and review as to whether and how many terms of a potentially compatible license conflict with the spirit, philosophy or effect of a CC license). hence the language "including but without limitation" — at a minimum, CC must take into account those two factors but otherwise it can take into account the totality of the license and its terms including those that may not have anything to do with the License Elements (such as limitation of liability clauses and jurisdiction limitations).

in terms of the definition — i think it was either rob or drew who pointed out that the (i) and (ii) could be better positioned so i'll make that amendment. but in terms of the suggestions below, i think we are just rearranging words and not changing the substance. as for the hypo in which this could go before a court, not that i want to ever suggest that anyone bring an action against CC, who if i were advising a licensor, i don't know that i would necessary recommend them to go after a licensee who relicensed under a license that CC had approved....

On Feb 12, 2007, at 7:12 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" 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

_______________________________________________
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