the statement is on the compatible licenses page in addition
to being
in the license. in relation to (b) — the language as
included in both
the page and the license does, imho, limit those licenses
that CC can
approve as compatible b/c CC can only approve a license as
compatible
which at least meets these conditions.
also, i think it's necessary to include it as a defined term
for the
sake of clarity and defined terms tend to get included in
the
Definitions section. subject to (f), none of the reasons
given below
are a reason to keep language out of the licenses if that
language
that assists and gives confidence to at least one if not
both parties
about the parameters of relicensing. in relation to (f), i
don't
understand how ambiguity arises. can you elaborate and give
an
example of a scenario in which a court would be called upon
to decide
this issue so that i can better understand the point?
On Feb 11, 2007, at 6:23 PM, James Grimmelmann wrote:
> Mia Garlick wrote:
>> 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.
>
> These are certainly reasons to make the criteria
public. But given
> that
> the language:
> (a) Doesn't require CC to approve licenses that meet
the two
> conditions;
> (b) doesn't prevent CC from approving licenses that
don't meet the two
> conditions;
> (c) wouldn't be binding on CC in any event;
> (d) expresses an intention that CC could express
through other means,
> including without limitation on the compatible-licenses
page;
> (e) isn't intended to change the legal meaning of the
license as
> between
> licensee and licensor; and
> (f) creates ambiguity in the legal meaning of the
license to the
> extent
> that a court gives it any weight --
> why do these criteria need to be in the license, and
not in some other
> public statement by CC?
>
> If nothing else, why not put this language in the box
at the top or
> the
> bottom of the license, where the text describes CC's
role, rather than
> conditions that apply between licensor and licensee?
>
> 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
|
