[Foundation-l] Attribution survey, first results
cimonavaro at gmail.com
Tue Mar 3 21:58:12 UTC 2009
Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/3/3 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <cimonavaro at gmail.com>:
>> I think it is very on point to mention that even if some
>> things were on that list, that would not make them
>> *more* acceptable to the community, just by virtue of
>> them being considered allowable by CC lawyers, if
>> they were infact contrary to our mission.
> Indeed. What we need to determine is what things are both acceptable
> to the community *and* legal. They are two independent criteria that
> both need to be satisfied.
Actually, what the CC lawyers would say, would *not*
constitute what is legal. it would just be some vague
interpretation of their intents and understandings; and
I doubt they would even confidentially let anyone know
*all* their views of possible legal ramifications.
It is not true that some concrete and definable "what
is legal" should be satisfied. In fact it would be contrary
to many of our core mission issues to satisfy many
"what is legal" criteria, in quite a few jurisdictions.
And not just in China, but quite palpably also in the UK.
(Crown Copyright for instance).
What we do want to enable though, is interoperability
within reasonable limits of concordance with our mission,
and jurisdictional issues of importing, exporting content
and keeping it generally in play within a copyleft framework.
More information about the foundation-l