[Foundation-l] Decision on Creative Commons 3.0

[Thomas Dalton]

> That's how I read it as well, in part because the wording is that "The
> license granted in Section 3 above is expressly made subject to and limited
> by the following restrictions".  If this is a limitation on the grant of
> license, I don't see how else to read it (inside the US).  I'm not sure what
> courts would do.  Would they would look to the intent of the CC lawyers, or
> would they look to the intent of the copyright owner?  Could the license be
> interpreted differently in different court cases (obviously yes, but it
> could it *legitimately* be interpreted differently)?

Again, IANAL, but as far as I know, intent is only relevant when the
wording is ambiguous. I don't think it is in this case, it's perfectly
clear to me what it means, and that just isn't what the authors
intended it to mean.