[KI-LC] [BoT] Proposed Change to the Intellectual Property Rights Policy

Brett McDowell email at brettmcdowell.com
Tue Nov 17 16:49:35 EST 2009


The CC license is kind of unique in that all the legal provisions can be consumed in less than one page of text.

Another example might be from OWFa that was released today.  Check out this page drafted by David Rudin as an explanation for what OWFa is and how to use it (and who should use it).

http://wiki.openwebfoundation.org/How_to_use_the_agreement



Brett McDowell  |  http://info.brettmcdowell.com  |  http://KantaraInitiative.org

On Nov 17, 2009, at 4:45 PM, Eve Maler wrote:

> There are already HTML links for the other options; see the links off this page:
> 
> http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/GI/IPR+Options
> 
> But that doesn't necessarily mean the non-CC options live up to the CC collateral in terms of being "human-readable"...
> 
> 	Eve
> 
> On 17 Nov 2009, at 1:32 PM, Robin Wilton wrote:
> 
>> (have removed BoT from the cc: list)
>> 
>> Yes - I was aware that that existed for CC - and of course the benefit is that there's a single definitive version. If there were an equivalent available for the other IPR options it would make things easier for thosewanting to choose between them.
>> 
>> R
>> 
>> Brett McDowell wrote:
>>> 
>>> Do you mean something like this:
>>> 
>>> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Brett McDowell  |  http://info.brettmcdowell.com  |  http://KantaraInitiative.org
>>> 
>>> On Nov 17, 2009, at 3:09 PM, Robin Wilton wrote:
>>> 
>>>   
>>>> One argument in favour of the CC licensing option was, IIRC, the fact that there is a place you can link to which gives a standardised definition of what the particular CC license implies. Is there an equivalent mechanism we can adopt for the other two options, so that in each case there is a simple way for non-sepcialists to check what each option means?
>>>> 
>>>> That comment made, I concur with Eve's recommendation.
>>>> 
>>>> Yrs.,
>>>> Robin
>>>> 
>>>> Eve Maler wrote:
>>>>     
>>>>> Personally, I think we should go ahead on #1.  And we should see if we can convince Bill Smith to round up some (joint BoT/LC?) committee activity on #2. :-)
>>>>> 
>>>>> 	Eve
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 17 Nov 2009, at 10:21 AM, J. Trent Adams wrote:
>>>>>  
>>>>>       
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> LC mailing list
>>>> LC at kantarainitiative.org
>>>> http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/lc
>>>>     
>>> 
>>>   
>> 
>> -- 
>> Robin Wilton
>> Director - Future Identity Ltd
>> 
>> +44 (0)705 005 2931
>> mail at futureidentity.eu
> 
> 
> Eve Maler
> eve at xmlgrrl.com
> http://www.xmlgrrl.com/blog
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://kantarainitiative.org/pipermail/lc/attachments/20091117/a384c31e/attachment.html 


More information about the LC mailing list