More Human-Readable Than Human-Readable

Have a look at our new, streamlined license selection process and Commons Deeds (an example).

Thanks to all of you who have written to us these first nine months with suggestions for improvements, and please let us know if you see anything in these new pages that could be improved.

5 thoughts on “More Human-Readable Than Human-Readable”

  1. You might want to change the “more info” links to show detail based on their choice. If they choose “no attribution” the “more info” link shows “attribution required” regardless. This may be confusing.

    Or perhaps show one of each, “attribution required” vs. “attribution not required”.

  2. I personally think “Tell us the format of your work” might scare people away who just want to get the code quickly, and should be put in the optional section.

  3. That’s right, the streamlining of the Commons Deeds has nothing to do with the changing of the licenses. Yes, Mr. Lenz, the discussion regarding warranties is still ongoing.

    And again, all the hysteria about getting sent to the poor house is way off base. Read my old posts on the subject again. (1, 2, 3.) There is a “reasonableness” modifier on the warranty. Liability is not unlimited to the ends of the earth. It’s simply not.

    Licensors should make a reasonable effort to verify that they’re not licensing someone else’s content, or that if they have, they’re making a fair use. If in doubt, they should tell the world what pieces of content in their licensed work they’re not sure about. If they’re still in doubt, they shouldn’t license their work. That’s it.

    And, yes, once again — we’re still considering the warranty issue. And we’ll let you know when we’ve made a decision.


  4. Oh, I see. The attribution thing is only included if it’s required–there’s no negated attribution. Well, still, there may be a way to clarify this for the user.

Comments are closed.