Re: Draft summary of Creative Commons 2.0 licenses (version 3)
On Mon, Mar 28, 2005 at 02:09:58PM -0500, Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
> <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
> knows.
>
> > 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
> license.
>
> > 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.
The first definition of 'explicit' at Dictionary.com is:
Fully and clearly expressed; leaving nothing implied.
So I don't think that it is explicit at all, refer to the parts of my
prior post that you didn't quote for the reason. Can you show me a
reference that suggests that it is generally accepted that putting a box
around text and changing the background color implies that the text in
that box is then explicitly not intended to be related to the remainder
of the text? The text about the trademark limits the freedom of use of
the CC trademark more than would be generally accepted without that
text. Wouldn't you agree that it grants CC additional options at the
expense of the license users? If not, then my next question would be
please explain why?
> 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?
I think that "we all" needs to be extended to all potential users of the
license. From that perspective, I don't think they all know that the
piece of text isn't part of the license. I also think that others could
use the layout of the page as a model for derivative licenses and I
don't think that would be good. I do like the basic concept of the CC
licenses though, meaning the freedom of choice.
It would be helpful if the page was explicit, not leaving anything implied.
Keeping the users in mind is important isn't it?
--
Doug Jensen
Reply to: