On Jul 17, 2007, at 1:16 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
I am fairly sure I was told otherwise by Lessig some
time ago: that
the CC-3.0 licenses are designed to increase the ability for authors
to enforce their moral rights by making the free license grant
contingent on moral rights being honored.
Egads, no!
At a minimum, I think Creative Commons needs to make
an official
statement clarifying its intentions. However, this isn't sufficient.
The intent of the license author is going to have minimal sway in
court; what will be material is the *exact text*, the understanding of
the licensee, and the understanding of the licensor.
But the exact text is not problematic at all. You are
misunderstanding it.
Jimmy, I have a lot of trust in your judgment, but I
think I need to
specifically ask you to sit back and consider this subject carefully
under each of the several hats you wear. You are visionary about the
importance of content which isn't merely no-cost but which provides
freedom. You are a board member for the Wikimedia Foundation,
responsible for its long term well-being. You are an internet
entrepreneur whose companies profit from content creation communities.
You are a board member for Creative Commons with the expected
responsibilities. And you are the father to a child who will inherit
the social and informational legacy we are all creating.
Of course I agree with all of that, and I am telling you, you are
misunderstanding the situation here.
--Jimbo