[Foundation-l] foundation-l Digest, Vol 45, Issue 8

[Robert Rohde]

On Dec 1, 2007 7:19 PM, Mike Godwin <mnemonic at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> Gregory Maxwell writes:
>
> >  The CC-By-SA text, which you quoted incompletely, is fairly
> > unambiguous: it even goes out of its way to point out that you are
> > subject to the copyleft when you combine covered sound or video to
> > create a new work
> >
> > What is problematic is that the Creative Commons has advised people
> > with advice that is at odds with the license.
>
> This is not legally problematic, however it may be a problem for some
> folks otherwise.  The plain language of the CC-BY-SA text would trump
> anyone's attempt to define the license in a way that is at odds with
> the text.  No court would rule otherwise, even if Larry Lessig showed
> up and argued the other side.
>
> I should add that I don't think speculation about the motives or
> thought processes of Creative Commons folks tells me much.  After a
> while, I just look at the plain language of the license in question
> and make my decisions based on that language.
>

As Greg already noted, motivations/intentions matter a great deal when the
license has an open ended "or later versions" clause.  If a court found that
the license actually meant something other than what the Creative Commons
had intended, then they could simply write a new version.

-Robert A. Rohde