Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Peter Brink <peter.brink AT brinkdata.se>]

Thinh Nguyen skrev:
> In principle, the basis for the interpretation of any agreement (contract or
> license) is the intent of the parties. However, in practice, this can be
> more complex. 
>
> To quote the general principle as explained by a Delaware court:
>
> When interpreting a contract, the Court¹s function is to ³attempt to
> fulfill, to the extent possible, the reasonable shared expectations of the
> parties at the time they contracted. The Court does this by initially
> looking to the contract¹s express terms. If the terms are clear on their
> face and reasonably susceptible to only one meaning, then the Court gives
> those terms the meaning that would be ascribed to them by a reasonable third
> party. If, however, a contract¹s language is ambiguous, then the Court will
> look beyond the ³four corners² of the agreement to extrinsic evidence. A
> contract is not ambiguous merely because the parties disagree as to its
> proper construction. Instead, ambiguity exists when the terms of a contract
> are reasonably susceptible to different interpretations or have two or more
> different meanings. Also, when possible, the Court should attempt to give
> effect to each term of the agreement and to avoid rendering a provision
> redundant or illusory.  Matria Healthcare, Inc. v. Coral SR, LLC, (Del. Ch.,
> March 1, 2007) (available at
> http://www.delawarelitigation.com/MatriaHealth.pdf)
This is the Common Law solution to the problem. A Civil Law court will 
not feel limited to "the four corners of the agreement". To make matters 
even more complicated French, German and Scandinavian courts, to name a 
few, will not use the same methodology.

/Peter Brink