Re: Draft summary of Creative Commons 2.0 licenses (version 3)
"Benj. Mako Hill" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: [CC trademark clause]
> It is explicit in the source of the page and it's explicit (although
> not necessary universally unambiguous) in the graphical visualization
> that 99+% of people reading the page see. CC has explained clearly
> their position and we know that they are not trying to pull one on
> us. This is sloppiness, not non-freeness.
A CC representative has equally clearly explained that they are
unwilling to fix this problem. So, we end up trying to fix symptoms
not problems and the hype around CC means that there are *lots* of
symptoms. CC is being inconsiderate, in my opinion.
> Are you really arguing that a piece of text that we all know is not a
> part of the license renders the license itself non-free?
No, but if it's included in the licence by a licensor who considers it
part of the licence, clearly your "we all know" is false.
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Subscribed to this list. No need to Cc, thanks.