Re: Draft summary of Creative Commons 2.0 licenses (version 3)
Marco d'Itri <md@Linux.IT> wrote:
> firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
> >No, but if it's included in the licence by a licensor who considers it
> >part of the licence, clearly your "we all know" is false.
> Then this licensor is using a different license which is not a CC
> license. It's not that hard.
Then we should still ask CC to make reasonable adjustments to
stop encouraging them, or to actually enforce the trademark and
stop people describing these licences as CC-by (or whatever)
instead of leaving it to us to mop up. It's not that hard to
see that these CC-based licences are a PITA.