4.0/Internationalization - Revision history

Kat Walsh: more past-tensing

2013-12-09T19:08:20Z

more past-tensing

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:08, 9 December 2013
Line 3:		Line 3:
	==Summary==		==Summary==
	<div style="padding: 1em; margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px dotted red; background-color: #eee; width: 97%;">		<div style="padding: 1em; margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px dotted red; background-color: #eee; width: 97%;">
	Internationalization is the process by which CC continues to ensure that our licenses [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/FAQ#What_are_the_international_.28.E2.80.9Cunported.E2.80.9D.29_Creative_Commons_licenses.2C_and_why_does_CC_offer_.E2.80.9Cported.E2.80.9D_licenses.3F operate globally] and atop applicable copyright law as intended. This page provides context for ~~making~~ internationalization of the license language and terms an express priority for 4.0, and ~~aggregates~~ relevant considerations and proposals for improving still further the international reach and usability of the core licenses.		Internationalization is the process by which CC continues to ensure that our licenses [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/FAQ#What_are_the_international_.28.E2.80.9Cunported.E2.80.9D.29_Creative_Commons_licenses.2C_and_why_does_CC_offer_.E2.80.9Cported.E2.80.9D_licenses.3F operate globally] and atop applicable copyright law as intended. This page provides context for the way internationalization of the license language and terms was made an express priority for 4.0, and aggregated relevant considerations and proposals for improving still further the international reach and usability of the core licenses.

	'''''N.B.''' The internationalization effort is not designed or intended to undermine the value of the porting process, the continued need for which will be discussed separately in a formal consultation period during the 4.0 process. We respect the important role that porting has played and continues to play on many levels, including acceptance of CC licenses by important adopters. Further internationalization of the licenses in 4.0 is critical for the continued maintenance and improvement of the licenses~~. We expect the assistance of our legal affiliates in helping us achieve this goal~~.''		'''''N.B.''' The internationalization effort is not designed or intended to undermine the value of the porting process, the continued need for which will be discussed separately in a formal consultation period during the 4.0 process. We respect the important role that porting has played and continues to play on many levels, including acceptance of CC licenses by important adopters. Further internationalization of the licenses in 4.0 is critical for the continued maintenance and improvement of the licenses.''

	''The formal porting consultation will take place ~~before the 4.0 licenses are finalized~~ [~~http://wiki.creativecommons.org/~~4.0#Draft_timeline ~~(estimated in 3Q2012)~~] and will be informed by issues raised during the drafting process. For those in our community wishing to voice opinions on the subject in advance, please post those to our existing [~~http://wiki.creativecommons.org/~~Porting_Project Porting Project discussion page]. ~~During~~ this first phase, the page below ~~will~~ only be dedicated to identifying necessary and important changes to the language of the international licenses~~. Please read more below for how you can contribute to this objective~~.''		''The formal porting consultation will take place [[4.0#Draft_timeline\|around the second quarter of 2014]] and will be informed by issues raised during the drafting process. For those in our community wishing to voice opinions on the subject in advance, please post those to our existing [[Porting_Project\|Porting Project discussion page]]. In this first phase, the page below was only dedicated to identifying necessary and important changes to the language of the international licenses.''
	</div>		</div>

CCID-diane peters at 19:11, 11 September 2013

2013-09-11T19:11:49Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:11, 11 September 2013
Line 60:		Line 60:
	We have removed the first sentence of the Interpretation section (Section 7(a) in d3), but retain the second sentence. This is in response to a group of comments that, taken as a whole, led us to believe the first sentence is not necessary and does not provide the clarity for licensors and licensees we were seeking. The removed sentence stated the established default rule that applies in the absence of any provision, so we saw no risk in eliminating the statement. That, plus the difficulties of expressing the rule properly, lead us to eliminate the sentence altogether. We will, however, be providing information outside of the license about the license operation and the default rule of interpretation.		We have removed the first sentence of the Interpretation section (Section 7(a) in d3), but retain the second sentence. This is in response to a group of comments that, taken as a whole, led us to believe the first sentence is not necessary and does not provide the clarity for licensors and licensees we were seeking. The removed sentence stated the established default rule that applies in the absence of any provision, so we saw no risk in eliminating the statement. That, plus the difficulties of expressing the rule properly, lead us to eliminate the sentence altogether. We will, however, be providing information outside of the license about the license operation and the default rule of interpretation.

	There were some suggestions post draft 3 that we allow licensors to choose the law that applies or that a rule different from the default apply, such as where the licensed material is first made available. We are compelled to reject those options. While the default rule is not simple, it is established and understood generally, and is not as complex as allowing licensors to impose foreign laws on unsuspecting licensees. We have worked particularly hard in 4.0 to ensure that rights established in one territory or region are confined to that territory or region, and not exported via our licenses where no equivalent right exists. On the question of sui generis database rights in particular, we made this pledge affirmatively and unequivocally in Warsaw in 2011 as a condition of pursuing the licensing of those rights. The alternatives presented allow for that possibility and for that reason we choose to stay with the default rule that supports the intended operation of the license in this regard.		There were some suggestions post draft 3 that we allow licensors to choose the law that applies or that a rule different from the default apply, such as where the licensed material is first made available. We are compelled to reject those options. While the default rule is not simple, it is established and understood generally, and is not as complex as allowing licensors to impose foreign laws on unsuspecting licensees. We have worked particularly hard in 4.0 to ensure that rights established in one territory or region are confined to that territory or region, and not exported via our licenses where no equivalent right exists. On the question of sui generis database rights in particular, we made this pledge affirmatively and unequivocally in Warsaw in 2011 as a condition of pursuing the licensing of those rights. The alternatives presented allow for that possibility and for that reason we choose to stay with the default rule that supports the intended operation of the license in this regard. Note that Creative Commons has informed its affiliate community that in the event we were to allow ports, any such port could not introduce a choice of law or forum provision. This will ensure all licenses operate the same around the globe.
	}}		}}

CCID-shinchpearson at 17:08, 10 September 2013

2013-09-10T17:08:38Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:08, 10 September 2013
Line 41:		Line 41:
	\|}		\|}

	{{~~Infobox~~\|		{\| class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed wikitable"
			! (expand to read Draft 3 treatment)
			\|-
			\|
			{\| class="wikitable" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="5" width=100%
			\|valign="TOP" style="background:#FFDADA;border:5px #FDAFAF;padding:1em;"\|
	===Draft 3===		===Draft 3===
	While we continue to incorporate changes to accommodate specific concerns from various jurisdictions around the world, the main change designed to internationalize the license in this draft was the addition of an interpretation clause. The clause is included to give guidance to licensees as they determine their obligations under the license. It is tantamount to a choice of law provision but without naming the law itself, specifying that the license should be interpreted with reference to copyright and similar rights in effect where the licensee has used the licensed material. This is intended to track the likely outcome according to private international law, and where it does not then the clause allows private international law to control.		While we continue to incorporate changes to accommodate specific concerns from various jurisdictions around the world, the main change designed to internationalize the license in this draft was the addition of an interpretation clause. The clause is included to give guidance to licensees as they determine their obligations under the license. It is tantamount to a choice of law provision but without naming the law itself, specifying that the license should be interpreted with reference to copyright and similar rights in effect where the licensee has used the licensed material. This is intended to track the likely outcome according to private international law, and where it does not then the clause allows private international law to control.
Line 48:		Line 53:

	For a more detailed explanation, please read the [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2013-March/007360.html discussion prompt] posted to the license development list. You can also review [[4.0/Internationalization#Chart_of_interpretation_options\|this table]] identifying other options we considered but ultimately found unsuitable.		For a more detailed explanation, please read the [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2013-March/007360.html discussion prompt] posted to the license development list. You can also review [[4.0/Internationalization#Chart_of_interpretation_options\|this table]] identifying other options we considered but ultimately found unsuitable.
	====Draft ~~3 update=~~===		\|}
			\|}

			{{Infobox\|
			===Draft 4===
			We have removed the first sentence of the Interpretation section (Section 7(a) in d3), but retain the second sentence. This is in response to a group of comments that, taken as a whole, led us to believe the first sentence is not necessary and does not provide the clarity for licensors and licensees we were seeking. The removed sentence stated the established default rule that applies in the absence of any provision, so we saw no risk in eliminating the statement. That, plus the difficulties of expressing the rule properly, lead us to eliminate the sentence altogether. We will, however, be providing information outside of the license about the license operation and the default rule of interpretation.

			There were some suggestions post draft 3 that we allow licensors to choose the law that applies or that a rule different from the default apply, such as where the licensed material is first made available. We are compelled to reject those options. While the default rule is not simple, it is established and understood generally, and is not as complex as allowing licensors to impose foreign laws on unsuspecting licensees. We have worked particularly hard in 4.0 to ensure that rights established in one territory or region are confined to that territory or region, and not exported via our licenses where no equivalent right exists. On the question of sui generis database rights in particular, we made this pledge affirmatively and unequivocally in Warsaw in 2011 as a condition of pursuing the licensing of those rights. The alternatives presented allow for that possibility and for that reason we choose to stay with the default rule that supports the intended operation of the license in this regard.
	}}		}}


	===Internationalization as of 3.0===		===Internationalization as of 3.0===
Line 113:		Line 124:
	* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.2:''' Continued work to use internationally familiar language.		* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.2:''' Continued work to use internationally familiar language.
	* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.3:''' Same.		* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.3:''' Same.
			* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.4:''' Same.


Line 122:		Line 134:
	* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.2:''' Same.		* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.2:''' Same.
	* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.3:''' Same. This will be a major focus of the post-d3 public discussion period.		* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.3:''' Same. This will be a major focus of the post-d3 public discussion period.
			* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.4:''' Same.


Line 131:		Line 144:
	* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.2:''' Same.		* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.2:''' Same.
	* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.3:''' Same. This will be a major focus of the post-d3 public discussion period.		* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.3:''' Same. This will be a major focus of the post-d3 public discussion period.
			* '''Treatment in 4.0 d.4:''' Same.

Kat Walsh: reformat

2013-05-20T18:06:37Z

reformat

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:06, 20 May 2013
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{4.0 Issue}}		{{4.0 Issue}}

			==Summary==
	<div style="padding: 1em; margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px dotted red; background-color: #eee; width: 97%;">		<div style="padding: 1em; margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px dotted red; background-color: #eee; width: 97%;">
	~~'''Page summary:'''~~ Internationalization is the process by which CC continues to ensure that our licenses [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/FAQ#What_are_the_international_.28.E2.80.9Cunported.E2.80.9D.29_Creative_Commons_licenses.2C_and_why_does_CC_offer_.E2.80.9Cported.E2.80.9D_licenses.3F operate globally] and atop applicable copyright law as intended. This page provides context for making internationalization of the license language and terms an express priority for 4.0, and aggregates relevant considerations and proposals for improving still further the international reach and usability of the core licenses.		Internationalization is the process by which CC continues to ensure that our licenses [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/FAQ#What_are_the_international_.28.E2.80.9Cunported.E2.80.9D.29_Creative_Commons_licenses.2C_and_why_does_CC_offer_.E2.80.9Cported.E2.80.9D_licenses.3F operate globally] and atop applicable copyright law as intended. This page provides context for making internationalization of the license language and terms an express priority for 4.0, and aggregates relevant considerations and proposals for improving still further the international reach and usability of the core licenses.

	'''''N.B.''' The internationalization effort is not designed or intended to undermine the value of the porting process, the continued need for which will be discussed separately in a formal consultation period during the 4.0 process. We respect the important role that porting has played and continues to play on many levels, including acceptance of CC licenses by important adopters. Further internationalization of the licenses in 4.0 is critical for the continued maintenance and improvement of the licenses. We expect the assistance of our legal affiliates in helping us achieve this goal.''		'''''N.B.''' The internationalization effort is not designed or intended to undermine the value of the porting process, the continued need for which will be discussed separately in a formal consultation period during the 4.0 process. We respect the important role that porting has played and continues to play on many levels, including acceptance of CC licenses by important adopters. Further internationalization of the licenses in 4.0 is critical for the continued maintenance and improvement of the licenses. We expect the assistance of our legal affiliates in helping us achieve this goal.''
Line 9:		Line 10:
	</div>		</div>

	{{Infobox \|~~'''~~Draft 1 ~~Treatment:'''~~ In this draft, we placed a major emphasis on communicating how the licenses are designed to operate internationally. Specifically, we drafted with a careful eye on limiting the scope of the license grant to uses that are restricted by applicable copyright and neighboring rights. (See the [[4.0/License_subject_matter\|License Subject Matter page]] for a more complete description of how different rights are treated by the license.) Our goal was to do this in a way that conveys this concept clearly, is accessible to non-lawyers and allows the license to operate equally and effectively around the world.
			{\| class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed wikitable"
			! (expand to read Draft 1 treatment)
			\|-
			\|
			{{Infobox \|
			===Draft 1===
			In this draft, we placed a major emphasis on communicating how the licenses are designed to operate internationally. Specifically, we drafted with a careful eye on limiting the scope of the license grant to uses that are restricted by applicable copyright and neighboring rights. (See the [[4.0/License_subject_matter\|License Subject Matter page]] for a more complete description of how different rights are treated by the license.) Our goal was to do this in a way that conveys this concept clearly, is accessible to non-lawyers and allows the license to operate equally and effectively around the world.

	We also account for internationalization in our recognition of moral rights, just as we did in 3.0, and are mindful that different jurisdictions where those exist permit those to be licensed, waived or otherwise affected in distinct ways, or prohibit any attempt to do so altogether. See the [[4.0/Moral_rights\|Moral Rights page]] for a further description of how this draft accounts for those differences.		We also account for internationalization in our recognition of moral rights, just as we did in 3.0, and are mindful that different jurisdictions where those exist permit those to be licensed, waived or otherwise affected in distinct ways, or prohibit any attempt to do so altogether. See the [[4.0/Moral_rights\|Moral Rights page]] for a further description of how this draft accounts for those differences.
Line 16:		Line 24:

	Note we have also added a bullet point addressing our treatment of each [[4.0/Internationalization#Proposals_for_internationalization_in_4.0\|internationalization proposal]] below.}}		Note we have also added a bullet point addressing our treatment of each [[4.0/Internationalization#Proposals_for_internationalization_in_4.0\|internationalization proposal]] below.}}
			\|}

			{\| class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed wikitable"
			! (expand to read Draft 2 treatment)
			\|-
			\|
	{\| class="wikitable" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="5" width=100%		{\| class="wikitable" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="5" width=100%
	\|valign="TOP" style="background:#FFDADA;border:5px #FDAFAF;padding:1em;"\|		\|valign="TOP" style="background:#FFDADA;border:5px #FDAFAF;padding:1em;"\|
	~~'''~~Draft 2 ~~Treatment:'''~~ In response to feedback on draft 1, we have heavily edited the language to make the license easier to understand. (Indeed, this is the primary reason we are not producing a redline comparison of d1 to d2, given the number of changes.) However, the effort to use plain language remains ongoing and will be a particularly strong area of emphasis once the substance of the license is finalized in the coming weeks. Please bear with us, and keep the constructive comments coming.		===Draft 2===
			In response to feedback on draft 1, we have heavily edited the language to make the license easier to understand. (Indeed, this is the primary reason we are not producing a redline comparison of d1 to d2, given the number of changes.) However, the effort to use plain language remains ongoing and will be a particularly strong area of emphasis once the substance of the license is finalized in the coming weeks. Please bear with us, and keep the constructive comments coming.

	We also continue to incorporate changes to account for differences depending on jurisdiction. For example, we have included a provision allowing licensors to disclaim liabilities differently from the standard terms or to provide warranties, which accommodates differences in consumer laws worldwide and supports licensors who care (deeply) that their liabilities are limited and warranties are disclaimed in the manner they find most suitable. ([http://wiki.creativecommons.org/4.0/Sandbox#Disclaimer_of_warranties_and_related_issues See discussion on disclaimers.]) Another example of continued internationalization includes incorporation of WIPO Copyright Treaty language in the definition of Share.		We also continue to incorporate changes to account for differences depending on jurisdiction. For example, we have included a provision allowing licensors to disclaim liabilities differently from the standard terms or to provide warranties, which accommodates differences in consumer laws worldwide and supports licensors who care (deeply) that their liabilities are limited and warranties are disclaimed in the manner they find most suitable. ([http://wiki.creativecommons.org/4.0/Sandbox#Disclaimer_of_warranties_and_related_issues See discussion on disclaimers.]) Another example of continued internationalization includes incorporation of WIPO Copyright Treaty language in the definition of Share.

	We continue to solicit input on how to further internationalize the license. Look for information about how the license is intended to operate in this d2 discussion period, leading into a concrete discussion about license interpretation prior to publication of d3.		We continue to solicit input on how to further internationalize the license. Look for information about how the license is intended to operate in this d2 discussion period, leading into a concrete discussion about license interpretation prior to publication of d3.
			\|}
	\|}		\|}

	{{Infobox\|~~'''~~Draft 3 ~~Treatment:'''~~		{{Infobox\|
			===Draft 3===
	While we continue to incorporate changes to accommodate specific concerns from various jurisdictions around the world, the main change designed to internationalize the license in this draft was the addition of an interpretation clause. The clause is included to give guidance to licensees as they determine their obligations under the license. It is tantamount to a choice of law provision but without naming the law itself, specifying that the license should be interpreted with reference to copyright and similar rights in effect where the licensee has used the licensed material. This is intended to track the likely outcome according to private international law, and where it does not then the clause allows private international law to control.		While we continue to incorporate changes to accommodate specific concerns from various jurisdictions around the world, the main change designed to internationalize the license in this draft was the addition of an interpretation clause. The clause is included to give guidance to licensees as they determine their obligations under the license. It is tantamount to a choice of law provision but without naming the law itself, specifying that the license should be interpreted with reference to copyright and similar rights in effect where the licensee has used the licensed material. This is intended to track the likely outcome according to private international law, and where it does not then the clause allows private international law to control.

	The second part of the clause is intended to ensure that the license is never interpreted to erode or override exceptions or limitations to copyright and similar rights. This clause tracks closely Section 2 in version 3.0. This important principle has always been fundamental to the operation of CC licenses, but we felt it was important to make it part of the clause that users and potentially, judges, will use when interpreting the license. We will be seeking additional input on this provision during this draft 3 public comment period.		The second part of the clause is intended to ensure that the license is never interpreted to erode or override exceptions or limitations to copyright and similar rights. This clause tracks closely Section 2 in version 3.0. This important principle has always been fundamental to the operation of CC licenses, but we felt it was important to make it part of the clause that users and potentially, judges, will use when interpreting the license. We will be seeking additional input on this provision during this draft 3 public comment period.

	For a more detailed explanation, please read the [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2013-March/007360.html discussion prompt] posted to the license development list. You can also review [[4.0/Internationalization#Chart_of_interpretation_options\|this table]] identifying other options we considered but ultimately found unsuitable.}}		For a more detailed explanation, please read the [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2013-March/007360.html discussion prompt] posted to the license development list. You can also review [[4.0/Internationalization#Chart_of_interpretation_options\|this table]] identifying other options we considered but ultimately found unsuitable.
			====Draft 3 update====
			}}

CCID-diane peters: /* Chart of interpretation options */

2013-03-26T17:57:35Z

Chart of interpretation options

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:57, 26 March 2013
Line 75:		Line 75:
	\|-		\|-
	\|Laws in effect where the licensee is headquartered or domiciled		\|Laws in effect where the licensee is headquartered or domiciled
	\|Close to the established rule (where the work is used), but fails to account for other laws that may apply to one’s conduct when in other jurisdictions (i.e., foreigners must abide by the laws of countries they visit even if those same laws are not in force in their home country); holds licensees accountable to laws they ~~“should”~~ know		\|Close to the established rule (where the work is used), but fails to account for other laws that may apply to one’s conduct when in other jurisdictions (i.e., foreigners must abide by the laws of countries they visit even if those same laws are not in force in their home country); holds licensees accountable for laws they “should” know
			\|-
			\|Laws in effect where the creator first releases the work
			\|Favors licensors; may have no practical relationship with the alleged infringing use; risks exportation of laws to jurisdictions where rights do not exist; may create greater uncertainty and chilling effect on users; licensees may not know where the work was first released; who determines "first"? holds licensees accountable for laws they "should" know
	\|}		\|}

Kat Walsh: link mailing list post

2013-03-07T02:19:01Z

link mailing list post

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:19, 7 March 2013
Line 31:		Line 31:
	The second part of the clause is intended to ensure that the license is never interpreted to erode or override exceptions or limitations to copyright and similar rights. This clause tracks closely Section 2 in version 3.0. This important principle has always been fundamental to the operation of CC licenses, but we felt it was important to make it part of the clause that users and potentially, judges, will use when interpreting the license. We will be seeking additional input on this provision during this draft 3 public comment period.		The second part of the clause is intended to ensure that the license is never interpreted to erode or override exceptions or limitations to copyright and similar rights. This clause tracks closely Section 2 in version 3.0. This important principle has always been fundamental to the operation of CC licenses, but we felt it was important to make it part of the clause that users and potentially, judges, will use when interpreting the license. We will be seeking additional input on this provision during this draft 3 public comment period.

	For a more detailed explanation, please read the discussion prompt ~~[link~~] posted to the license development list. You can also review [[4.0/Internationalization#Chart_of_interpretation_options\|this table]] identifying other options we considered but ultimately found unsuitable.}}		For a more detailed explanation, please read the [http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2013-March/007360.html discussion prompt] posted to the license development list. You can also review [[4.0/Internationalization#Chart_of_interpretation_options\|this table]] identifying other options we considered but ultimately found unsuitable.}}

CCID-diane peters: /* Chart of interpretation options */

2013-03-07T00:51:46Z

Chart of interpretation options

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:51, 7 March 2013
Line 71:		Line 71:
	\|No practical guidance for licensees; favors licensors who can chose laws that favor the result they seek; may have no practical relationship with the alleged infringing use; encourages forum shopping; may raise litigation costs yet judgment may not provide any precedential value; facilitates a “race to the top” approach to CC licenses		\|No practical guidance for licensees; favors licensors who can chose laws that favor the result they seek; may have no practical relationship with the alleged infringing use; encourages forum shopping; may raise litigation costs yet judgment may not provide any precedential value; facilitates a “race to the top” approach to CC licenses
	\|-		\|-
	\|Laws in effect where the licensor is headquartered/domiciled		\|Laws in effect where the licensor is headquartered or domiciled
	\|Favors licensors; may have no practical relationship with the alleged infringing use; risks exportation of laws to jurisdictions where rights do not exist; may create greater uncertainty and chilling effect on users; licensees may not know where licensor is headquartered or domiciled		\|Favors licensors; may have no practical relationship with the alleged infringing use; risks exportation of laws to jurisdictions where rights do not exist; may create greater uncertainty and chilling effect on users; licensees may not know where licensor is headquartered or domiciled
	\|-		\|-

CCID-diane peters: /* Chart of interpretation options */

2013-03-07T00:51:06Z

Chart of interpretation options

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:51, 7 March 2013
Line 74:		Line 74:
	\|Favors licensors; may have no practical relationship with the alleged infringing use; risks exportation of laws to jurisdictions where rights do not exist; may create greater uncertainty and chilling effect on users; licensees may not know where licensor is headquartered or domiciled		\|Favors licensors; may have no practical relationship with the alleged infringing use; risks exportation of laws to jurisdictions where rights do not exist; may create greater uncertainty and chilling effect on users; licensees may not know where licensor is headquartered or domiciled
	\|-		\|-
	\|Laws in effect where the licensee is headquartered/domiciled		\|Laws in effect where the licensee is headquartered or domiciled
	\|Close to the established rule (where the work is used), but fails to account for other laws that may apply to one’s conduct when in other jurisdictions (i.e., foreigners must abide by the laws of countries they visit even if those same laws are not in force in their home country); holds licensees accountable to laws they “should” know		\|Close to the established rule (where the work is used), but fails to account for other laws that may apply to one’s conduct when in other jurisdictions (i.e., foreigners must abide by the laws of countries they visit even if those same laws are not in force in their home country); holds licensees accountable to laws they “should” know
	\|}		\|}

Kat Walsh: link table in d3 summary

2013-03-07T00:41:50Z

link table in d3 summary

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:41, 7 March 2013
Line 31:		Line 31:
	The second part of the clause is intended to ensure that the license is never interpreted to erode or override exceptions or limitations to copyright and similar rights. This clause tracks closely Section 2 in version 3.0. This important principle has always been fundamental to the operation of CC licenses, but we felt it was important to make it part of the clause that users and potentially, judges, will use when interpreting the license. We will be seeking additional input on this provision during this draft 3 public comment period.		The second part of the clause is intended to ensure that the license is never interpreted to erode or override exceptions or limitations to copyright and similar rights. This clause tracks closely Section 2 in version 3.0. This important principle has always been fundamental to the operation of CC licenses, but we felt it was important to make it part of the clause that users and potentially, judges, will use when interpreting the license. We will be seeking additional input on this provision during this draft 3 public comment period.

	For a more detailed explanation, please read the discussion prompt [link] posted to the license development list. You can also review this table ~~[link~~] identifying other options we considered but ultimately found unsuitable.}}		For a more detailed explanation, please read the discussion prompt [link] posted to the license development list. You can also review [[4.0/Internationalization#Chart_of_interpretation_options\|this table]] identifying other options we considered but ultimately found unsuitable.}}

Kat Walsh: /* Chart */ heading

2013-03-07T00:38:44Z

Chart: heading

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:38, 7 March 2013
Line 60:		Line 60:
	''Please add other considerations here.''		''Please add other considerations here.''

	===Chart===		===Chart of interpretation options===
	{\|class="wikitable"		{\|class="wikitable"
	!Alternative interpretation options		!Alternative interpretation options