Re: Version 3.0 — It's Happening & With BY-SA Compatibility Language Too

Mia Garlick wrote:
> so i always appreciate feedback on how to draft things
better,  
> especially when we are trying to forge new ground...i
guess though,  
> that i am not convinced that the issues identified here
warrant the  
> changes suggested....my sense is that the objection is
more a  
> stylistic one to the phrase "including without
limitation" .... than  
> to the actual structure...but maybe i'm wrong...

I think that is right.  Given your concerns about timing and

flexibility, I agree that getting compatibility language
into the 3.0 
versioning, and soon, are important goals.  While I disagree
that these 
conditions should be in the license at all, I would not want
my concerns 
to block this important change.

As you note, however, I remain very worried about the phrase
"including 
without limitation."  To me the natural reading, in
context, was that CC 
could approve a license that had the same terms, purpose,
and effect, 
but was also allowed to approve a license that did not.  I
hear you to 
be saying, though, that intention of that section was to
indicate that 
CC might impose additional conditions in addition to make
sure that the 
license remained essentially equivalent.

Have I just been ruined by law school to insist on
overly-close 
readings, or would the new paragraph express the desired
sentiment more 
clearly if "including without limitation" were
simply dropped?  Or 
replaced with "at the least"?

These questions are all, as you say, stylistic, but past
experience on 
this list has shown that handling stylistic details well is
good 
future-proofing.

James
_______________________________________________
cc-licenses mailing list
cc-licenseslists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses

ok, so i must confess that in my many years of drafting and
reviewing  
and negotiating licenses, "including without
limitation" has never  
been understood to mean "you may disregard that which
is listed here"  
but instead to mean "you must at a minimum have regard
to these  
things but may also have regard to things that we cannot
foresee  
yet"....it's the whole exhaustive list issue with the
language  
intended to show that the list is not exhaustive...

obviously, the purpose of including these two baseline
conditions is  
to give people comfort that CC will consider these two
conditions at  
least or as a minimum.

so let's try to get agreement...i don't like the "at
least" language  
but wondered if we could all agree on this: "including,
at a minimum,  
because that license.."

what say you??

On Feb 12, 2007, at 6:33 PM, James Grimmelmann wrote:

> Mia Garlick wrote:
>> so i always appreciate feedback on how to draft
things better,
>> especially when we are trying to forge new
ground...i guess though,
>> that i am not convinced that the issues identified
here warrant the
>> changes suggested....my sense is that the objection
is more a
>> stylistic one to the phrase "including without
limitation" .... than
>> to the actual structure...but maybe i'm wrong...
>
> I think that is right.  Given your concerns about
timing and
> flexibility, I agree that getting compatibility
language into the 3.0
> versioning, and soon, are important goals.  While I
disagree that  
> these
> conditions should be in the license at all, I would not
want my  
> concerns
> to block this important change.
>
> As you note, however, I remain very worried about the
phrase  
> "including
> without limitation."  To me the natural reading,
in context, was  
> that CC
> could approve a license that had the same terms,
purpose, and effect,
> but was also allowed to approve a license that did not.
 I hear you to
> be saying, though, that intention of that section was
to indicate that
> CC might impose additional conditions in addition to
make sure that  
> the
> license remained essentially equivalent.
>
> Have I just been ruined by law school to insist on
overly-close
> readings, or would the new paragraph express the
desired sentiment  
> more
> clearly if "including without limitation"
were simply dropped?  Or
> replaced with "at the least"?
>
> These questions are all, as you say, stylistic, but
past experience on
> this list has shown that handling stylistic details
well is good
> future-proofing.
>
> James
> _______________________________________________
> cc-licenses mailing list
> cc-licenseslists.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