Development of Creative Commons licenses

["Jonathon Blake" <jonathon.blake AT gmail.com>]

Eric wrote:

> up to giant media conglomerates. I doubt the latter would have
bothered without the
blessing of their legal departments

Have you taken a look at the license that "media conglomerates" are
selecting, when choosing a CC license?

> If I were that judge, I'd see such actions on the part of the
> licensor as lawsuit-bate, and through the whole case out.

Provide a legal definition for "non commercial".

I suspect that the first dozen or so cases (in the US at least) will
revolve around:
*  What is legally meant by "non-commercial";
* What the licensor understands by "non-commercial";
* What the licensee understands by "non-commercial";
* How much weight to give to the Creative Commons Guidelines on what
the license means;

> That decision will set the course for how future open-source licenses will 
> work.

You've forgotten a couple of things:

* The ability of Congress to inflict mandatory "Your Rights Removed"
licenses on all content;
* Bad prior case law that mandates "your rights removed" for all content;
* Software EULAs that turn over the Intellectual Property Rights of
content created with that software to the company that
wrote/distributed the software;

Unfortunately, there is precedent for all three of those cases.

xan

jonathon