Re: Draft summary of Creative Commons 2.0 licenses (version 3)
On Sun, Mar 27, 2005 at 03:31:01PM -0500, Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
> <quote who="evan@debian.org" date="2005-03-27 13:37:20 -0500">
> > Now, agreed, stuff that's not part of the license shouldn't matter.
> > But it's really, really difficult to tell that the overreaching
> > language in the trademark restrictions is ignorable. I mean, it's
> > RIGHT THERE, on the same page as the license text. Please, take a
> > moment to look at it in a graphical Web browser:
> >
> > http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/legalcode
>
> I've seen it. I looked at it before I wrote my first message. It's in
> a separated, bounded, and different colored box and its in a different
> tone and outside of the organizational structure of license.
The last paragraphs in the license located at
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/legalcode
look like this in a text browser:
<quoting from the page>
Creative Commons is not a party to this License, and makes no warranty
whatsoever in connection with the Work. Creative Commons will not be
liable to You or any party on any legal theory for any damages
whatsoever, including without limitation any general, special,
incidental or consequential damages arising in connection to this
license. Notwithstanding the foregoing two (2) sentences, if Creative
Commons has expressly identified itself as the Licensor hereunder, it
shall have all rights and obligations of Licensor.
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.
Creative Commons may be contacted at http://creativecommons.org/.
<end of quote>
I cannot see anything indicating that the "Creative Commons"
trademark paragraph is not part of the license, when looking at it in
a text browser[1]. In a graphical browser the entire section quoted
above has a box around it. My first thought was that that section was
being highlited as importatnt, and the part stating "... as the Licensor
hereunder, it shall have all rights and obligations of Licensor.",
would lead me to believe that the entire section is part of the license.
When I read on this mailing list that Creative Commons has stated that
the boxed portion is not part of the license, then it seamed more
confusing. How can the term "hereunder" not be considered part of the
license? If that part is part of the license why wouldn't the next
paragraph be considered part of the license? Can Creative Commons
fix the confusing parts of the license? Why leave things in a confusing
state if it can be fixed?
I agree that sometimes d-legal has been a bit picky, but there also is
good reason to be careful.
I don't think it is quite good enough that Creative Commons understands
what they mean, if the users of the license don't understand as well.
==
Doug Jensen
[1] I like text browsers for several reasons, and have read comments by
others expressing the same.
Disclaimer: I am not a DD or a lawyer.
Reply to: