Re: Draft summary of Creative Commons 2.0 licenses (version 3)
"Benj. Mako Hill" <email@example.com> wrote:
> > > Is ALLCAPS "NOT A PART OF THE LICENSE",
> > ...in an HTML comment...
> Only because it's graphically separated, by color and inside a box,
> when the HTML is rendered. The HTML comment is trying to make explicit
> in the source what is already explicit in the rendered document.
It's not explicit. Using colouring and borders as the only marking for
important information is discouraged by the Web Content Accessibility
Guidelines and others. I believe most cases where this is included in
a licence are probably someone doing lynx -dump on the page or similar.
Yes, we can get most of them fixed, but we could get all of them fixed
without further effort if CC would follow WCAG.
> > I think the overreaching language is the main freedom issue. The
> > response from CC when it's been pointed out has been, "But that
> > section is not a part of the license. The license users aren't bound
> > by it."
> They think it's obvious visually, in the HTML source, and from
> comments that they've made to clarify it and doesn't need to be
> fixed. I agree that's it's more ambiguous than it should be but I also
> thank that they've things clear enough that it's not a freedom issue.
> I mean, they've said this in so many words (including in the text of
> the page) and quite honestly, their argument is really the only one
> that matters as licensors are not able to speak for Creative Commons
> about their trademark.
If the licensor includes that term in the copyright conditions
for the work, I don't think that CC's opinion matters much,
unless they are granting an unrestricted royalty-free trademark
permission. After all, the copyright licensor could include
something really daft like "you must not use the word 'the'"
as an extra condition should they wish.
Finally, I'm worried that Marco d'Itri thinks you have sanity.
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Subscribed to this list. No need to Cc, thanks.