Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Jordan S Hatcher <jordan AT opencontentlawyer.com>]

We had a question at Open Data Commons about limiting liability for  
providers of data under the PDDL, our implementation of the Science  
Commons protocol, but unlike CCZero, just for data.

I summarised and posted about it here:

<http://www.opendatacommons.org/2008/02/13/limiting-liability-in-the- 
pddl/>

CCZero has no limitation of liability or indemnification clause (for  
the Affirmer that is), and specifically notes liability may be  
present for the "Asserter" and so some might wonder about the  
liability of providers of work under CCZero. Some questions I see as  
relevant for the development of CCZero:

-- Would adding a limitation of liability clause in a separate  
document be compliant with the Science Commons protocol or with the  
way CCZero is intended to be used?

-- Adding a limitation of liability clause in the Affirmer version  
and requiring that CCZero be kept with the document could solve the  
problem. Would this BSD/MIT style requirement of keeping the licence  
with the work be compliant with the protocol or with the way CCZero  
is intended to be used?

This one is probably one that will end up on cc-community, but how  
would an indemnification clause fit in?

Thanks!

~Jordan



____
Mr. Jordan S Hatcher, JD, LLM

jordan at opencontentlawyer dot com
OC Blog: http://opencontentlawyer.com
IP/IT Blog: http://twitchgamer.net

Open Data Commons
<http://opendatacommons.org>

Usage of Creative Commons by cultural heritage organisations
http://www.eduserv.org.uk/foundation/studies/cc2007