Development of Creative Commons licenses

[James Grimmelmann <james AT grimmelmann.net>]

Mia Garlick wrote:
> 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 think that is right.  Given your concerns about timing and 
flexibility, I agree that getting compatibility language into the 3.0 
versioning, and soon, are important goals.  While I disagree that these 
conditions should be in the license at all, I would not want my concerns 
to block this important change.

As you note, however, I remain very worried about the phrase "including 
without limitation."  To me the natural reading, in context, was that CC 
could approve a license that had the same terms, purpose, and effect, 
but was also allowed to approve a license that did not.  I hear you to 
be saying, though, that intention of that section was to indicate that 
CC might impose additional conditions in addition to make sure that the 
license remained essentially equivalent.

Have I just been ruined by law school to insist on overly-close 
readings, or would the new paragraph express the desired sentiment more 
clearly if "including without limitation" were simply dropped?  Or 
replaced with "at the least"?

These questions are all, as you say, stylistic, but past experience on 
this list has shown that handling stylistic details well is good 
future-proofing.

James