Re: On the debian-legal Summary of Creative Commons 2.0
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 12:12:44PM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
> About Creative Commons:
>
> I feel this needs a paragraph on CC's decision-making, but
> I do not feel qualified to write it.
I have no way of finding that out, and I don't see why it's necessary.
If you can dig up some information, I'll include it.
> Removing References - I think this also may conflict with
> No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavour if exercised.
How so? Can you make that clearer? Is it worth including in the summary?
> Any Other Comparable Authorship Credit - I consider this
> unclear rather than outright breaking guidelines, so I
> suggest making the last paragraph "would be" not "is".
Fair enough. How about "external clarification could make this free,
but could also make it not free, and fixing the text is the best
solution"? (Except more careful wording, esp. w/r/t "free".) I need to
think up something similar for the trademark requirements issue.
> Trademark Restrictions - In the final paragraph, this
> should appeal to Web Content Accessibility Guideline
> 2 http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG/#gl-color to support it.
> Maybe this section should also note that there have been
> uses of the licence which included this section, so it
> is definitely ambiguous.
I think it says that already.
Some instances of the license found in the wild include the
trademark restrictions.
New wording welcome.
> Add WCAG, the debian policy manual and constitution.
>
> I apologise for the late arrival of this comment.
No sweat. It's probably worth noting at this point that Creative
Commons did their major review of version 3, and although they're
aware of version 4, they probably are going to respond to 3. I'm going
to do a version 5 after we hear their response. According to Dr.
Lessig, they're meeting to go over their response today.
Thanks for your response.
~Evan
Reply to: