[License-discuss] [License-review] CC withdrawl of CC0 from OSI process

[Rick Moen]

Quoting Chris Travers (chris at metatrontech.com):

> Rick;
> 
> I think you are missing one key point in your reply to me. 

I didn't miss that.

> In short: Part of the point is to realize that the engineer's question
> is "What do I have to do to stay safe?  How do I know if this license
> applies?"

  'Law being complex is a Problem.'

Making the world perfect is somewhere on my to-do list, but the task
will not get much love today.

Anyway, I actually spent quite a bit of time painstakingly explaining to
you why your premise was wrong and your entire framing of the issue is
wrong-headed from the start.  Now, with quite breathtaking speed, you 
have come back with a lot more.  I'm out of time, for now.  Sorry.

(By the way, I was already short of time enough that I forgot the
numbered footnote, earlier.  That should have been something like:
[1] Particulars to follow will be somewhat USA-centric, for which
my apologies to the international subscriber base.)


Anyway, at a quick glance, you really need to take care that you aren't
twisting the concepts of 'functional element' and 'expressive element'
outside their intended meaning in copyright law when you spin out
doubtfully related expressions like 'functional connection' and
'expressive derivation'.  I'd suggest more reading of caselaw and fewer
amateur theoretical constructions, if you want to come up with something 
relevant to actual law.

> So we get back to the problem that Bruce was trying to answer, which
> is how we explain what a license allows to non-lawyers.  

'Laymen not finding complex licensing as easy to read as a dinner menu
is a Problem' is IMVAO an utter waste of time.  However, if that's your
idea of a hobby, enjoy.