On Sun, 2006-24-09 at 11:47 -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> > If they wanted to "prevent license complication" why didn't they base
> > CC3.0 on CC-Scotland's plain and simple English that already allows
> > parallel distribution, rather than the CC2.5-generic that IIRC doesn't?
> 'Cause they're not that bright.  ;-)  Basing 3.0 on CC-Scotland probably
> seemed "too radical" and basing it on CC2.5-generic seemed 
> more "conservative".  People make stupid decisions like that.  Most of them 
> probably never even read CC-Scotland, despite our suggestions.

Are you talking about this license?


It doesn't seem to be a shining example of simplicity to me. Here's the
relevant section from CC Scotland:

        2.2 However, this Licence does not allow you to:
             1. impose any terms or any technological measures on the
                Work, or a Derivative Work, that alter or restrict the
                terms of this Licence or any rights granted under it or
                have the effect or intent of restricting the ability of
                any person to exercise those rights;

...and from CC 3.0 generic draft:

        You may not impose any technological measures on the Work that
        restrict the ability of a recipient of the Work from You to
        exercise the rights granted to them under the License.

The Scottish one has a nice brevity in that it combines concerns about
DRM and extra license terms, and restrictions on verbatim and modified
copies, in one sentence. Otherwise, I don't see an order-of-magnitude
difference in the simplicity of the text.


with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to