Re: Public review period for Creative Commons 2.0 license draft
Andrew Suffield <email@example.com> wrote:
>On Wed, Jan 28, 2004 at 03:44:23AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
>> I spotted the following problem in part of the text which isn't actually
>> of the license:
>> "Except for the limited purpose of indicating to the public that the Work
>> licensed under the CCPL, neither party will use the trademark "Creative
>> Commons" or any related trademark or logo of Creative Commons without the
>> prior written consent of Creative Commons."
>> Too broad. This denies legitimate, otherwise-legal uses of the trademarks,
>> such as for commentary and criticism (uses which will not cause confusion
>> about the trademark to the public).
(and now Andrew's words....)
>Trademarks can't restrict that sort of thing anyway. They don't grant
>broad control over the use of the subject, like copyright does.
Right, which is why the license should not purport to exert such forms of
control. Currently it does purport to do so, although it's presumably
A nasty and abusive interpretation of the existing text exists:
that both parties have agreed, by using a CC license, not to use the Creative
Commons trademarks without explicit permission, regardless of trademark law.
It is best to avoid the possibility, however remote, of such an abusive
interpretation by rewriting the language to say what is actually intended.
My apologies for not making it clear previously precisely what the issue was.