On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 3:34 AM, Maarten Zeinstra <[email protected]> wrote:
> I do have to remark that this is an unusual process of requesting feedback. > It seems that you have intended functionality in mind, choose a way of > implementing that functionality and are requesting feedback only on the > implementation, leaving the intended functionality out of the discussion. A > more structural way to go about this it so ask us for ways to implement > intended functionality and not comment on the consequences of a flawed > implementation. That would give a far more constructive discussion and > leaves room for creativity. One thing I should say, that I don't think the initial message made clear, is that this was meant to be understood as simply one proposal to start discussion about the problem it was trying to solve, not a finished product; I'm happy to see its presentation didn't prevent questioning of the assumptions it was making where that was justified. (Within Legal, we don't have strong opinions on the details of any particular implementation--it's mostly about ensuring that whatever does get used is suitable for the various purposes it needs to be used for, not all of which we're going to be aware of without asking a cross-section of communities.) Cheers, Kat > > Best, > > Maarten > > -- > Kennisland > | www.kennisland.nl | t +31205756720 | m +31643053919 | @mzeinstra > > > > > On Apr 18, 2013, at 21:55 , Diane Peters <[email protected]> wrote: > > Jumping in here on the legal team piece, please see inline. > > On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 12:07 PM, Dan Mills <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> <snip> > > >> >> (1) user visits the deed. It might be required for the legal code to be >> included there in some form (such as an expanding widget, for example). This >> is what I'm hearing from the legal team - it's not 100% clear yet, but a >> possibility. In such a setting, the legal code would need to >> >> - not contain the big header >> - not include the "back to deed" link at the bottom >> - not include links to translations being proposed for the legalcode page >> (the deed already has locale links) > > > What Dan's alluding to here is a possibility I mentioned to him when > discussing 4.0. Specifically, a few affiliates (maybe one or two) have in > the past asked that the deed be reproduced at the top of the legal code. > Dan's reaction back was, if it's determined there is a decision taken in the > 4.0 process to locate the deed and legal code in closer, immediate proximity > for some reason, then there exists the other possibility of having the legal > code appear in a scroll box (or other) on the deed rather than the reverse. > > This is not yet a discussion framed for comment with the affiliates, I'm > trying to follow up with those couple of affiliates who have petitioned for > this change in the past first. It's not at all certain it will progress, > just so you're aware. > > Thanks for the good discussion. We'll progress the "what do we need/desire > from a legal perspective to remain unchanged" on the affiliate list. > > Diane > > Diane > > > > _______________________________________________ > cc-devel mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-devel > -- Kat Walsh, Counsel, Creative Commons IM/IRC/@/etc: mindspillage * phone: please email first Help us support the commons: https://creativecommons.net/donate/ CC does not and cannot give legal advice. If you need legal advice, please consult your attorney. _______________________________________________ cc-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-devel
