the purpose for including the criteria is so that people who
use the
license can know and feel some reassurance in the measures
by which
CC will be deeming licenses as compatible. also, it is
important
that the criteria be laid out so that those who are license
stewards
for potentially compatible licenses know what is required to
be
declared compatible.
On Feb 10, 2007, at 3:13 PM, James Grimmelmann wrote:
> drew Roberts wrote:
>>
>> Possibly:
>>
>> ""Creative Commons Compatible
License" means a license that is listed
>> at http://
creativecommons.org/compatiblelicenses that has been
>> approved by Creative Commons as being essentially
equivalent to this
>> License, because it meets at least the following
requirements: (i)
>> contains terms that have the same purpose, meaning
and effect as the
>> License Elements of this License; and, (ii)
explicitly permits the
>> relicensing of derivatives of works made available
under that
>> license
>> under this License."
>>
>> Now, perhaps that change is not really necessary
and I was just
>> beingt more
>> dense than ususal while reading it all these times.
Comments welcome.
>
>
> Perhaps I am missing something, but why couldn't the
definition end
> after "essentially equivalent to this
License"? All that the rest
> does
> is explain what criteria CC will usually use to decide
whether the
> license in the same, but nothing that adds to or
subtracts from the
> actual list the canonical URL. Whether or not it's
called a "note,"
> isn't it a bunch of inoperative text? Those criteria
ought to be
> listed
> on the page of compatible licenses, not in the license
text itself,
> no?
>
> James
> _______________________________________________
> cc-licenses mailing list
> cc-licenses lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses
_______________________________________________
cc-licenses mailing list
cc-licenseslists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses
|
