Cc-uk mailing list

[Rob Myers <robmyers AT mac.com>]

a) Yes, this is confusing. Please can the American wording be used?
b) If a license is to be readable by non-lawyers, it *should* note that it 
doesn't affect other rights or responsibilities. I really would like to see a 
"paternity right" assertion in the license.
c) Has this been changed since m'learned friend read it?:
"3. Licence Grant. Subject to the terms and conditions of this Licence, 
Licensor hereby grants You a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive licence 
for the duration of the applicable copyright to exercise the rights in the 
Work in accordance with applicable law as stated below"
For a UK licensor to provide a worldwide license, this license must surely be 
correct under UK law...
d) This is being taken out for CC2.0, a step which I believe is fatally 
flawed. The best solution is to just have an OGL-style personal 
representation of authority to contribute. If a warranty isn't fair, is 
passing on all risk?

I think criticising the license for being legalistic is silly given that it's 
a license and given the human-readable precis that CC provides (I'm guessing 
this wasn't provided). And criticising the license for being based in UK 
(English/Welsh) law is silly given the aim of making a lciense watertight for 
the contributor's jurisdiction. Possibly this needs explaining better for 
Lord Justices. :-)

- Rob. 


On Monday, March 29, 2004, at 11:02AM, Christiane Asschenfeldt 
<christiane AT creativecommons.org> wrote:

> [mailto:LordJustice.Jacob AT courtservice.gsi.gov.uk]
>
>Sent: 22 March 2004 09:46
>
>To: 'Nadine Antun'
>
>Subject: RE: Creative Commons: New Schedule
>
> 
>
>As i said before I am not going to get into detailed draft.
>
>But I have the following, fairly fundamental comments.
>
>1. This document is near unreadable. it is much too complex. It would
>
>not be intelligible to its intended users without a couple of lawyers - and
>
>I am not sure to the. I really think it would be wise to start with a new
>
>drat.
>
>2. It shows signs that the author did not understand much - here are a
>
>couple of examples.
>
>(a) 2nd Recital opens "By accessing the Work provided here2 What is that
>
>supposed to mean? By looking at this yo are bound by its terms?
>
>(b) Fair dealing. A nonsense provision - you cant contract out of it - it
>
>is just not an infringement. No need to say anything - if you must it
>
>would be "the licence here conferred is in addition to the limitations on
>
>the scope of copyright created by the Act."
>
>(c) It is pretty hopeless to have a purely UK licence. People do not want
>
>only national freedoms. And I see no reason why, in principle, the licence
>
>conferred should not be worldwide.
>
>(d) Warranty from Licensor - Unfair. If were a licensor I woult not give
>
>it. it is one thing to say you can use my work for free. it is another to
>
>give a warranty to a free user. They must take their chance.
>
> 
>
>Sorry to be so brutal.
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Cc-uk mailing list
>Cc-uk AT lists.ibiblio.org
>http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-uk
>
>