Re: Draft summary of Creative Commons 2.0 licenses (version 3)
Matthew Garrett wrote:
>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:
This one falls, for me, under the "since it's so easy to fix, why exactly
aren't they fixing it?" category.
I did agree, once I found the HTML comment, that the current status does not
render the license non-free. I sent a polite message many months ago asking
them to fix the confusing web page -- which should be easy, as it doesn't
involve changing the license -- but they did not respond.
That began to make me wonder whether they actually had some reason for
rendering the web page confusing, such as wanting the trademark terms to be