Re: Draft summary of Creative Commons 2.0 licenses (version 3)
Evan Prodromou <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> I think we need to stay focused somewhere in the middle. A good metric
> is to be suspicious of any language that appears non-free, absent other
> information. In other words, err on the conservative side.
I'd tend to agree, though I'm not sure that that's being desperately
> Down to brass tacks: if you think that there are parts of the Creative
> Commons summary where we are leaning over backwards to see a problem
> where none exists, please let me know. We _do_ need to bring it into a
> final form sooner rather than later.
I'm not convinced by the trademark argument - I think it's pretty clear
from the HTML that it's not intended to be part of the license. Yes, it
would be better if that was made clearer, but:
a) CC appear to have said that it's not part of the license, and:
b) CC are the people who would care about us using their trademark
It's /possible/ that a copyright holder could claim that we're
infringing their license because we use the phrase "Creative Commons"
somewhere within the distribution, but I don't think it's likely and I'm
not convinced that they'd have any significant legal leg to stand on.
So, while it would be great if they'd clarify things, I don't think it's
enough to make it non-free.
I tend to agree with the other issues, with more concern over the DRM
and removal of credits than the authorship credit - I'm not sure how
well we've got our act together on forming a firm opinion on that.
Matthew Garrett | email@example.com