[Harmony-Drafting] Fwd: Where are the agreements?

[consiliens]

On 08/09/2011 03:03 AM, Allison Randal wrote:
> On 08/06/2011 11:43 PM, consiliens wrote:
>>
>> The Harmony templates [1] should note the license they are released
>> under. For example, see Oracle's CC licensed CA [2].
>>
>> Why are the templates still not properly released under the selected CC
>> license?
>
> They are properly released as CC. The CC site gives instructions for
> putting up an icon or information on a website. It doesn't require this
> information embedded within the work, for example no one puts the CC
> logo inside a photo or piece of art work. Creators can optionally embed
> additional notices anywhere they want to, but it's not expected.
>
> Allison
> _______________________________________________
> Harmony-Drafting mailing list
> Harmony-Drafting at lists.harmonyagreements.org
> http://lists.harmonyagreements.org/mailman/listinfo/harmony-drafting
>

The CC site does a good job of explaining why there's room for improvement.

If someone is emailed ha-cla-i-v1.pdf, they have no way of knowing what 
license it's released under.  In contrast to the OCA which clearly 
states the license.

The CC site explains "These buttons are designed to act as a notice to 
people who come in contact with your work that your work is licensed 
under the applicable Creative Commons license or is in the public domain. "
http://wiki.creativecommons.org/FAQ

Another sensible use case is printing the agreement.  CC advises the 
following for offline works:
"For offline works, you should identify which Creative Commons license 
you wish to apply to your work and then mark your work either: (a) with 
a statement such as “This work is licensed under the Creative Commons 
[insert description] License. To view a copy of this license, visit 
[insert url]; or, (b) send a letter to Creative Commons, 444 Castro 
Street, Suite 900, Mountain View, California 94140, USA.”"
http://wiki.creativecommons.org/FAQ

It's a best practice for CC licensed documents to identify the license 
they are released under.  I don't see how licensing ambiguity helps 
further adoption of the Harmony agreements.