Re: Draft summary of Creative Commons 2.0 licenses (version 3)
On Mon, Apr 25, 2005 at 05:08:08PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> 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.
... and the fact that they refuse to fix such a simple thing bodes very ill
for getting more serious problems fixed ...