Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Gregor Hagedorn <g.m.hagedorn AT gmail.com>]

On 27 August 2012 19:40, drew Roberts <zotz AT 100jamz.com> wrote:
> 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.

1. I fully second that, I believe this is a balanced solution and in
the spirit of the open content movement.

2. This is quite different from a grace period during which a
violation would be tolerated until the license terminates (which is my
understanding of Anthony's proposal and Diane's proposed path of
discussion). I concur with Mathias Schindler that this is an
unnecessary complication.

3. While I concur with Drew that a healed violation should not be
prosecuted, I believe this should be a moral question, not a legal
one. While I think the license should expressedly mention
reinstatement, it should be silent on this.

The consequences of _not_ introducing a grace period or "no action if
healed" clause are simplicity, but also more rights to the licensor.
Offering fresh licensing (after the violation no longer occurs) only
takes a ways the punitive aspect of "life-long-inability-to-license",
but not the right of the licensor to seek damages for a violation.

A positive aspect of this is that it does not make it risk-free to
violate the license. However, it limits damages to the damages
incurred during  the duration of the violation, which immediately
terminated the license and thus created a copyright violation.

Gregor