On Sat, 2007-07-21 at 02:23 -0400, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
On 7/21/07, Joichi Ito <jito(a)neoteny.com>
wrote:
I'm sorry this happened. I'll look into
how this happened, but my
understanding was that the language that was used was what was in the
draft.
If it was the language in the public drafts during 2007 I am gravely
mistaken and owe an apology.
It *was* the language in a Dec 2006 draft I was given privately.
Because I did not see the language in later drafts I believed it was
dropped from consideration, I was in error to make that assumption
regardless of anything else that went on.
An example draft:
http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2007-February/005013.html
That draft is only for the US license.
Generic/unported license drafts with the language in question were
public from the beginning of the 3.0 process:
http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2006-August/003855.html
http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2006-October/004459.html
But CC could have done a more thorough job of reaching out to
Wikipedians for critique. If you were left with the impression the
drafts were private this is a bad thing.
Your feedback on the licenses and process will in the long run result in
higher quality CC licenses, so thanks. :)
Mike
--
http://wiki.creativecommons.org/User:Mike_Linksvayer