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

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

On Sun, Mar 27, 2005 at 09:33:11PM -0500, Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
> <quote who="Andrew Suffield" date="2005-03-28 01:43:54 +0100">
> > On Sun, Mar 27, 2005 at 12:50:15PM -0500, Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
> > > I think it also helps to remember
> > > that this isn't the same as source code and the the nature of bugs
> > > is somewhat different. It's, for lack of a better word,
> > > fuzzier. Contracts are interpreted by people and, ultimately, by
> > > people who are judges and things like reasonable expectations,
> > > intent, and good/bad faith that don't make sense in the source
> > > code metaphor are central aspects in law and licensing. I think we
> > > are sometimes guilty of giving these less weight than we should.
> > 
> > We *can't* give serious consideration to that sort of thing. It is
> > precisely because these issues are fuzzy that we can't afford to. As
> > soon as you start saying "This might be non-free, but it's okay, you
> > might be able to get out of it anyway" then what you're also saying
> > is "You are going to have to go to court if you want to exercise the
> > things enumerated in the DFSG, and you might lose".
> Well, that's not what I'm saying at all. I think that the chance of
> this going to court every is next to none. I think that the chance of
> it going to court and lasting more than a day in front the judge are
> next to next to none.

You're just restating our normal approach to things in a confusing
manner, and claiming that we don't do it? Logical disconnect there,
but since you don't seem to have a point, I can't be bothered to
dissect it.

> The authors of the license and everyone who know who uses it
> understands these one way that is more than an equally valid
> interpretation than the apocalyptic scenario we seem to be optimizing
> for.

So your argument here is based entirely on denying the existence of
people who hold differing opinions about the interpretation?

> Besides, we can't stop other people from taking us to court.

That's American foolishness, most countries don't really suffer from
nuisance lawsuits.

> Requiring a known free license issued by the copyright holder is a
> damn good way to do this and I support it (of course). I'm not saying
> we should just start accepting any license in the grey area (or even
> this licenses and I think has some unambiguously non-free bits); I'm
> saying that there is nothing but a grey area.

Sounds like the old "because you can't be perfect, there's no point
trying" argument. You can apply that one to any RC bug, not just
licensing bugs.

  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ |
 `. `'                          |
   `-             -><-          |

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: