Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Joachim Durchholz <jo AT durchholz.org>]

James Grimmelmann schrieb:
> Joachim Durchholz wrote:
> > James Grimmelmann schrieb:
> > > Are there examples of significant legal disputes that have arisen out of
> > > disagreements about the use of freeware?  I would think that exactitide
> > > of license doesn't matter so much.
> > Well... imagine a company with a mindset that's similar to SCO.
> > [...]
>
> Who is this new SCO suing?  The former customers of its freeware?  Or
> freeware developers?  Both scenarios seem unlikely to me, given freeware
> business models.

Actually, I find both cases possible. And given that there are a 
multitude of companies failing each year, I'd expect such a case to any 
year now.

> And I also don't see how license clarity would change
> matters.  The GPL is doing as much as any license could as a
> counterweapon against SCO; SCO's claims, such as they are, have to do
> with process, rather than with license clarity.

Sure, details differ.
Motives wouldn't. There are companies that would sue at the drop of a 
hat. Giving software developers a license that is known to work would 
discourage that.
(This is in fact one of the things that make the GPL attractive. Like 
the conditions or not, many developers know that the GPL will protect 
their work and keep them out of harm's way.)

> > > The use of CC licenses for software is discouraged (for reasons already
> > > noted).
> > I must have overlooked these.
> > Care to give a short list?
>
> The list archives are full of them; this has been pretty heavily debated
> over the years.  First, software is functional.  Ensuring that the
> license gets right questions of continued functionality is important.
> Second, software is produced in both /modifiable (source code) and
> largely unreadable/unmodifiable (object code) forms, so that
> source-specific terms are important.  Third, software is often highly
> interactive, which again leads to specialized terms.  Fourth, software
> routinely implicates patent rights, which are a whole additional ball of
> wax.  I bet some of the others here can fill in further reasons.
>
> Basically, software is hard, and it's hard in a way that's unlike a lot
> of creative or informational works.  There are tough boundary cases, but
> it usually seems to work best to have software-specific licenses for
> software and general-purpose licenses for other kinds of stuff.

Thanks.

Though software being a hard case, a good license would be even more 
important.

The GPL is a good start - how about offering the full list of options to 
software developers?

> > Well, getting the license exactly right would definitely be something 
> > I'd want.
> > From the perspective of the licensee, that is; the licensor couldn't 
> > care less. Maybe that's another reason why such a license hasn't been 
> > drawn up yet.
>
> What are you afraid of as a licensee?

Being sued by, say, Adobe or Microsoft because I overlooked some part of 
their EULA.
There's an additional scenario where somebody could have an interest in 
sueing me: maybe I'm driving a website that's criticizing their policy. 
All they need to do is to put some vague license condition that's basis 
enough for litigation, even if dubious; all they need to shut down my 
site would then be a simple threat.

If CC licenses are widely adopted, people will get suspicious of EULAs 
and other license garbage, and companies that insist on their homebrew 
licenses will feel opposition. I don't really expect Microsoft to change 
their EULA, but Adobe might :-)

Sounds like an improvement over the current situation to me.

Regards,
Jo