On Sun, Mar 27, 2005 at 03:31:01PM -0500, Benj. Mako Hill wrote: > <quote who="[EMAIL PROTECTED]" date="2005-03-27 13:37:20 -0500"> > > Now, agreed, stuff that's not part of the license shouldn't matter. > > But it's really, really difficult to tell that the overreaching > > language in the trademark restrictions is ignorable. I mean, it's > > RIGHT THERE, on the same page as the license text. Please, take a > > moment to look at it in a graphical Web browser: > > > > http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/legalcode > > I've seen it. I looked at it before I wrote my first message. It's in > a separated, bounded, and different colored box and its in a different > tone and outside of the organizational structure of license.
The last paragraphs in the license located at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/legalcode look like this in a text browser: <quoting from the page> Creative Commons is not a party to this License, and makes no warranty whatsoever in connection with the Work. Creative Commons will not be liable to You or any party on any legal theory for any damages whatsoever, including without limitation any general, special, incidental or consequential damages arising in connection to this license. Notwithstanding the foregoing two (2) sentences, if Creative Commons has expressly identified itself as the Licensor hereunder, it shall have all rights and obligations of Licensor. Except for the limited purpose of indicating to the public that the Work is licensed under the CCPL, neither party will use the trademark "Creative Commons" or any related trademark or logo of Creative Commons without the prior written consent of Creative Commons. Any permitted use will be in compliance with Creative Commons' then-current trademark usage guidelines, as may be published on its website or otherwise made available upon request from time to time. Creative Commons may be contacted at http://creativecommons.org/. <end of quote> I cannot see anything indicating that the "Creative Commons" trademark paragraph is not part of the license, when looking at it in a text browser[1]. In a graphical browser the entire section quoted above has a box around it. My first thought was that that section was being highlited as importatnt, and the part stating "... as the Licensor hereunder, it shall have all rights and obligations of Licensor.", would lead me to believe that the entire section is part of the license. When I read on this mailing list that Creative Commons has stated that the boxed portion is not part of the license, then it seamed more confusing. How can the term "hereunder" not be considered part of the license? If that part is part of the license why wouldn't the next paragraph be considered part of the license? Can Creative Commons fix the confusing parts of the license? Why leave things in a confusing state if it can be fixed? I agree that sometimes d-legal has been a bit picky, but there also is good reason to be careful. I don't think it is quite good enough that Creative Commons understands what they mean, if the users of the license don't understand as well. == Doug Jensen [1] I like text browsers for several reasons, and have read comments by others expressing the same. Disclaimer: I am not a DD or a lawyer. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]