[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="2005-03-31 20:01:27 +0000">
> "Benj. Mako Hill" <mako@debian.org> wrote:
> > <quote who=3D"MJ Ray" date=3D"2005-03-30 22:15:15 +0000">
> > > [...] I'm not sure
> > > about the situation when they just link to the ambiguous page
> > > which has had clarifications issued in obscure places by CC (along
> > > with statements relying on the US view of "fair use" IIRC).
> > Great. The latter case is by far the most common. If you go to the CC
> > website, it instructs people to license their works through
> > linking. That's why they don't provide a copy suitable for inclusion
> > with a work.
> Do they even recommend licensing non-software works through
> linking, JOOI?

Apparently, yes.

> > > I reject your attempt to make me decide without extra data.
> > What extra data do you need?
> So far we've had apparently-expert opinions in both directions
> about how this situation would be viewed by courts. I feel I
> need some reason to value a particular expert above others. It
> may be that I've missed some relevant post in the volume.
> Then again, that's unnecessary work if CC follow WCAG better.

We can ask SPI's lawyer for an opinion if you think that would help.


Benjamin Mako Hill

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: