We're working on various ideas based on the conversation on this list including things like footnotes, updating the FAQ and updating the license.
One of the issues on our side is that our license is the product of a public comment period, long discussions with the community involving lots of people and lots of time. We can't just change licenses top down. On the other hand, the intent, as we have said, is not to add additional restrictions with the moral rights clause. I think we can figure out a way to make this more clear. IANAL and I'll have to leave it up to the legal team to determine how to clarify the language in the license, but as one of the "CC representatives" I would like to make it clear that I don't think there is disagreement about what we should say and that we could state it in a way that could be more clear. I think we're now trying to work out the process to make this happen. I'll keep you posted.
- Joi
On Jul 20, 2007, at 11:25 JST, Platonides wrote:
Erik Moeller wrote:
On 7/20/07, Magnus Manske wrote:
Once there is an official statement by CC that clears CC 3.0 for "full" use on Commons, we can treat it as any other valid license.
CC representatives have already responded here on this list with a clear legal position that the moral rights clause does not add any new restrictions, and indicated that they would be willing to improve the wording in future licenses. What more can they do?
Add a footnote on the license page explaining that these clause doesn't add restrictions. It is not only what the license says, but also what the licensor understood when he chose the license.
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
-- My Blog - http://joi.ito.com/ My Photos - http://www.flickr.com/photos/joi/ Facebook Profile - http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=505656997 LinkedIn Profile - http://www.linkedin.com/profile?key=1391