Development of Creative Commons licenses

["Gregory Maxwell" <gmaxwell AT gmail.com>]

On 8/9/07, Evan Prodromou <evan AT prodromou.name> wrote:
[snip]
> Really?! My intention with "or organization" was to cover so-called
> "Attribution Parties". I thought that was kind of clear.

Really. People take attribution very personally.

> Although it's conceivable that the licensor would designate an
> individual as the attribution party, it's by far the most common case
> that they designate* an organization they're somehow associated with.

My experience, if not hard data, indicates that people are quite
shocked when some name other than their own is attributed for a work
of the persons sole authorship.  Thought, this doesn't seem to be case
as often where true collaborative authorship exists.

No user study is required to figure out that people don't read terms
of service (or licenses for that matter).  While people wouldn't be
shocked by a designation they are surprised if they didn't explicitly
make it.


I can't help but feel concerned that it doesn't appear that quite as
much effort and care goes into the 'human readable' text as does the
license proper. I think they should be developed and maintained as a
single whole work.

I know the longstanding and explicitly stated position is that the
'code' takes precedence.  However, any 1L can tell you that when
settling a dispute about the terms of an agreement it is the parties'
understanding of the agreement which is paramount.

I would have a very difficult time arguing with a straight face that
the 'code', so often completely unread, was a greater part of the
understanding than the 'human readable' text for the majority of
cases.