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

Re: Draft summary of Creative Commons 2.0 licenses (version 3)

<quote who="doug jensen" date="2005-03-28 05:42:49 -0700">
> 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:

I know what it looks like it text browser. That's a bug in the
presentation/stylesheet of the page and perhaps a limitations of your
text browser for not making an important visual queue for
understanding the page visible. People make webpages that include
essential information in markup and images that cannot be shown in a
text browser. This is something that anybody who uses a text browser

> Can Creative Commons fix the confusing parts of the license?  Why
> leave things in a confusing state if it can be fixed?

I think I've said this in every message I've sent to this list: This
should be fixed. It is more confusing than it needs to be.  I'm saying
that I don't think non-license text affects the freedom of the

> 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.

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.

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?


Benjamin Mako Hill

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: