[Harmony-Drafting] Licensing for website content and agreements

[consiliens]

Disclaimer:  I'm not a lawyer and this isn't legal advice.

The enumerated concerns seem like good reasons for Harmony to use CC BY 
instead of CC0.  Ensuring there are a limited number of endorsed 
variations is primarily a trademark issue and those rights wouldn't be 
lost by selecting CC BY.

"You may only use the credit required by this Section for the purpose of 
attribution in the manner set out above and, by exercising Your rights 
under this License, You may not implicitly or explicitly assert or imply 
any connection with, sponsorship or endorsement by the Original Author, 
Licensor and/or Attribution Parties, as appropriate, of You or Your use 
of the Work, without the separate, express prior written permission of 
the Original Author, Licensor and/or Attribution Parties."
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/legalcode

The licensor can even have a licensee remove attribution.

"If You create a Collection, upon notice from any Licensor You must, to 
the extent practicable, remove from the Collection any credit as 
required by Section 4(b), as requested. If You create an Adaptation, 
upon notice from any Licensor You must, to the extent practicable, 
remove from the Adaptation any credit as required by Section 4(b), as 
requested."
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/legalcode

On 06/06/2011 12:47 PM, Allison Randal wrote:
> So, drafting our own short terms seemed the best fit for the agreements.
>
I thought the agreements were using CC BY?  After reading your response 
it seems I'm mistaken and the harmony agreements are released under a 
custom license.

> - partly because most other FLOSS licenses/CAs are satisfied with a bare
> copyright statement or a simple statement that verbatim copies are
> allowed, and don't need a "license for the license"
>
I think having a standard license for a set of documents being promoted 
for wide adoption has obvious benefits.  Even Oracle uses a CC license 
for their contributor agreement.

http://oss.oracle.com/oca.pdf

> and they
> would have been better off calling it "International" like they do in
> the selector form

I agree.