1

When I read Creative Commons licenses, I noticed that they always clearly state that they (Creative Commons) are not a law firm, the public licenses are distributed as-is without any liability and warranty. Usually in public licenses (like GPL) only the "Work" needs an explicit disclaimer.

Is there a reason that Creative Commons disclaims that they're not a law firm?

6
  • 3
    Do they have to? My guess is that probably they would not be considered a party. But if someone tries to argue differently, it makes much easier for them to ask the judge to dismiss the claim as baseless prima facie, without many of the costs that could be related from being named as defendants.
    – SJuan76
    Apr 4 at 12:51
  • 3
    Modifying a well known license is usually a bad idea for many reasons. I don’t know about Creative Commons license, but the various GPL licenses are copyrighted and the copyright holder gives you permission to use it unchanged, but no permission to create derivative works, so you can’t legally create a modified GPL license - which would only lead to trouble.
    – gnasher729
    Apr 9 at 6:22
  • According to wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/Modifying_the_CC_licenses they allow modifying their licenses Apr 11 at 5:59
  • I've revised this question to resolve the close reasons. Can you please confirm I did not change your intent with my edits? Apr 11 at 22:01
  • Yes, i'm wondering why they have to clearly state that they're not a party in the license, not just not a law firm, but anyway thanks Apr 13 at 15:21

0

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .