[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: CCPL-by

On Fri, Mar 26, 2004 at 02:17:21PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> |>]Except for the limited purpose of indicating to the public that the
> |>]Work is 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. Any
> |>]permitted use will be in compliance with Creative Commons'
> |>]then-current trademark usage guidelines, as may be published on its
> |>]website or otherwise made available upon request from time to time.
> |>
> |>But it's probably rendered moot by this line earlier:
> |
> |
> |>]Creative Commons is not a party to this License, and makes no
> |>]warranty whatsoever in connection with the Work.
> |
> |
> |>Because Creative Commons is not a party to the license, it can't
> |>insert restrictions on its trademarks into the license.  (The
> |>preceding paragraph, however, still ought to be rewritten to say what
> |>it's supposed to mean.)
> |
> |
> | I'm not sure I understand what you're saying.  Taken literally, the
> | licensor is doing Creative Commons a favor by enforcing their trademark
> | (via copyright) for them.
> Right.  This is what I was saying: Creative Commons isn't a party to the
> license, so they can't complain if the licensor ignores that clause and
> *doesn't* (mis)enforce the Creative Commons trademark via copyright.
> However, I just realized that the other parties to the license *could*
> complain, so that makes it a non-free requirement.  :-P  For instance,
> the licensor could complain about the behavior of a licensee (although
> normally he has no right to) with regard to the Creative Commons
> trademark, and use that as a license cancellation excuse.
> So, if those clauses are actually part of the license (and they look
> like it, although I think they weren't supposed to be), it is non-free.  :-P

Has anyone cared to check the source code of the page?
This sections begins with a comment:

So please just ask CC if they could make this fact more obvious (i.e.
not just using different backgroudn colors).

[not on this list, so please CC me]

Frank Lichtenheld <djpig@debian.org>
www: http://www.djpig.de/

Reply to: