[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="MJ Ray" date="2005-03-29 19:07:01 +0000">
> 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.

So, if we treat this as a freedom issue in situations where the
licensor has created a new version that does not include the
comment/bounding box and/or where we have reason to believe the
licensor feels that this is in fact part of the license, but do not
treat this as a freeodm issue when documents are licensed in the
normal way with a hyperlink to this page, would it be alright with
you? I apologize if I misunderstood.

Of course, in any situation, we should lobby to have this changed. I'm
just trying to divide the must-have freedom issues from the "it can
and should be changed" issues.


Benjamin Mako Hill

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: