Development of Creative Commons licenses

[drew Roberts <zotz AT 100jamz.com>]

On Monday 27 August 2012 13:18:42 Diane Peters wrote:
> I agree that there could be any number of things that affect it, but I'm
> simply stating the default, and emphasized that term in the reply below.
>
> I could imagine any number of ways that a licensee could argue the license
> doesn't automatically terminate, perhaps conduct by licensor or otherwise.
>  Probably myriad ways depending on jurisdiction. There's no way to preclude
> all of that, nor would we want to. I'm simply stating that as steward,
> we've designed the default operation of the license as such: as conditional
> permission to use the work, and when those conditions are violated the
> permission goes away.
>
> Eager to hear what others think on the merits of having a cure/provisional
> reinstatement period inserted, as this is an important policy decision for
> this d2-d3 period.

Diane,

Speaking only for BY-SA here as other licenses may have different "needs".

I think the license should automatically terminate on violation.
I think the license should have a procedure that, if followed, will 
automatically result in the grant of a new license on the same conditions.
I think that if a good faith effort was made to follow the license and the 
spirit of Free and copyleft, then there should be no penalties due for the 
period of unlicensed use. (Time from violation to reinstatement.) *
I think that if instead the violation was as a result of trying to game the 
system or restrict freedom then penalties should be possible for the 
violation period, even statutory damages.

I think that to facilitate some of this, it would be good to write a spirit 
preamble for BY-SA.

* with the exception of reasonable cost recovery for the costs of 
enforcement, 
fix.

>
> Diane

all the best,

drew
>
> On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 10:12 AM, Gregor Hagedorn 
<g.m.hagedorn AT gmail.com>wrote:
> > (Diane, I think the interpretation of "termination" is not as glass
> > clear as you imply. It is likely to be decided by the courts in the
> > way you state, but that is not necessarily obvious in the language. If
> > a rental contract terminates for some reason (as in "if you stop
> > paying the rent, the rental contract will automatically terminate
> > after 1 month rent is overdue") there is nothing in that statement
> > that prevents renewal of the rentral contract. You assert that the CC
> > license does prevent a renewal and I accept that this is the
> > intention, but:)
> >
> > ---
> >
> > Is the possibility of a renewal of a licence contract between 2
> > parties, after the violation causing a termination undesirable?
> >
> > If yes, why so?
> >
> > The cited FAQ (
> >
> > http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Frequently_Asked_Questions#What_happens_i
> >f_I_want_to_use_the_work_in_a_way_that_is_not_permitted_by_the_license.3F
> > ) is dealing exactly with quite a different situation: someone wants to
> > continue using a work in violation of the license. Here we discuss:
> > someone has (let us assume unintentionally) violated the license,
> > corrected the error and wants to start using the work again now. The
> > option to contact the copyright owners is not available because they
> > choose to be not contactable, relying on the CC license instead.
> >
> > What is the contingency plan?
> >
> > ----
> >
> > I therefore propose that CC 4.0 the interpretation of termination be
> > amended to allow a renewal of the license once the violation of the
> > license is stopped or fixed (e.g. proper attribution added).
> >
> > Gregor