On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 8:44 AM, Pamela Chestek <pchestek(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 11:38 AM, Luis Villa <luis(a)tieguy.org>
wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 9:42 AM, Mike Linksvayer <ml(a)gondwanaland.com> wrote:
>>
>> I see
>>
>> This License does not exclude or limit any rights You have under
>> applicable copyright [-doctrines of fair use, fair dealing or other-]
>> [- equivalents.-] {+law.+}
>
>
> I have not had time to review the entire license (have been on
> vacation, and CC 4.0 beta 3 is also in need of my eyeballs) but I
> would say that, while this change is correct in some sense, it makes
> the license less readable for non-lawyers, who would have no idea what
> this section refers to, and so might be unable to take advantage of
> it. I might suggest:
>
> "applicable law, such as fair use, fair dealing, or other equivalents."
The purpose was to be more inclusive than just fair use and the
equivalents, because there are so many statutory defenses - libraries,
churches, first sale, etc., etc. That's why the reference to fair use
was removed. I believe a later suggestion, that Richard agreed with,
was to even talk out the word "copyright," which would leave room for
contract-based defenses, etc. I liked "This License does not exclude
or limit any rights You have under applicable law" because it
expresses that we're not trying to take away anything with the
license, just grant some rights.
Sure, I completely see and agree with all of that, which is why my
suggestion also dropped "copyright" and makes the specifically
enumerated rights (from CC and MPL) into merely a list of examples of
"applicable law." I'm just saying that without some "such as"
examples
the language would be completely opaque and useless to a non-lawyer.
Luis