# Interview Questions > Use when a question must be phrased so it does not lead the customer. Facilitates the third step of a proven customer-interview method: translating hypotheses into open-ended, unbiased interview questions — each a miniature experiment designed to test one hypothesis without leading the witness. Two modes: given a single hypothesis, it grills the question into shape and outputs the final question in chat; given a HYPOTHESES.md file, it iterates the whole list, grouping related hypotheses, and maintains a QUESTIONS.md file (numbered Q1, Q2, … mapped to H-numbers) as a live, resumable artifact. Load when the user has hypotheses and wants interview questions, asks how to phrase a question for customers without biasing the answer, or says 'turn my hypotheses into questions' or 'help me ask about X without leading.' Do NOT load for writing goal questions or hypotheses (earlier steps), for conducting or analyzing the interviews themselves, for survey/questionnaire design, or for job interviews. ## Facts - Type: Agent skill - Discipline: Product - Author: Jason Cohen (https://github.com/asmartbear) - Upstream: https://github.com/asmartbear/asb-skills/tree/main/.claude/skills/asb-interview-questions - Source file: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/asmartbear/asb-skills/main/.claude/skills/asb-interview-questions/SKILL.md (26409 bytes, sha256:d7f83c212843f399ce7ec507c446fe930b1fd47a34ffd0b5c5078d216f7f80a6) - Licence: CC-BY-4.0 - Upstream copy last changed: 2026-09-17 - Status: listed, not yet ruled on by the curator ## Use it I want to use the Interview Questions skill by Jason Cohen. This is what it does, in the author's own words: Facilitates the third step of a proven customer-interview method: translating hypotheses into open-ended, unbiased interview questions — each a miniature experiment designed to test one hypothesis without leading the witness. Two modes: given a single hypothesis, it grills the question into shape and outputs the final question in chat; given a HYPOTHESES.md file, it iterates the whole list, grouping related hypotheses, and maintains a QUESTIONS.md file (numbered Q1, Q2, … mapped to H-numbers) as a live, resumable artifact. Load when the user has hypotheses and wants interview questions, asks how to phrase a question for customers without biasing the answer, or says 'turn my hypotheses into questions' or 'help me ask about X without leading.' Do NOT load for writing goal questions or hypotheses (earlier steps), for conducting or analyzing the interviews themselves, for survey/questionnaire design, or for job interviews. Download the whole folder at https://github.com/asmartbear/asb-skills/tree/main/.claude/skills/asb-interview-questions, SKILL.md and every file beside it, into your skills directory: ~/.claude/skills/asb-interview-questions/ for Claude Code, ~/.agents/skills/asb-interview-questions/ for Codex, ~/.cursor/skills/asb-interview-questions/ for Cursor. Get it from the author's repo, not from startupskills.dev. Then tell me the path you installed it to and how to invoke it. Nothing here is vendored: install from the author's repo, not from this site. A verbatim copy of the author's file follows for reading, under the licence reproduced after it; the current file is in the author's repo. ## Links - Page: https://startupskills.dev/asmartbear/asb-interview-questions - Author: https://startupskills.dev/asmartbear - Index: https://startupskills.dev/llms.txt ## The file itself --- name: asb-interview-questions description: "Facilitates the third step of a proven customer-interview method: translating hypotheses into open-ended, unbiased interview questions — each a miniature experiment designed to test one hypothesis without leading the witness. Two modes: given a single hypothesis, it grills the question into shape and outputs the final question in chat; given a HYPOTHESES.md file, it iterates the whole list, grouping related hypotheses, and maintains a QUESTIONS.md file (numbered Q1, Q2, … mapped to H-numbers) as a live, resumable artifact. Load when the user has hypotheses and wants interview questions, asks how to phrase a question for customers without biasing the answer, or says 'turn my hypotheses into questions' or 'help me ask about X without leading.' Do NOT load for writing goal questions or hypotheses (earlier steps), for conducting or analyzing the interviews themselves, for survey/questionnaire design, or for job interviews." --- # Interview Questions: Test Your Hypotheses Without Leading the Witness Most interviewers waste their customers' time and their own: they ask questions that telegraph the hoped-for answer, collect a stack of polite agreements, and walk away more confident and less correct than when they started. Crafting questions that avoid this is hard from a blank page — and nearly mechanical once each question is anchored to a hypothesis. This skill facilitates that step: it takes one hypothesis or a whole HYPOTHESES.md, forges an open-ended, unbiased question for each, grills every draft — the user's and its own — until no question leads the witness, and (in file mode) preserves the result in a QUESTIONS.md the interviews can be run from. ## The mental model ### A question is a miniature experiment Every interview question exists to test a specific hypothesis; one question can cover a few closely related hypotheses. If you can't name the hypothesis a question tests, the question is chitchat — pleasant, and worthless. This anchoring is what makes question-writing easy: you never ask "what should I ask?", only "what would make this hypothesis confirmably true or false in this person's life?" ### Leading the witness is the cardinal failure The classic collapse: the interviewer holds a hypothesis ("customers worry about getting hacked") and, still unconsciously in selling mode, asks: > "Blogs get hacked all the time, and when they do it's devastating, > right? Would you like it if your hosting company had extra security > measures?" Everyone says yes — they'd look foolish otherwise. The question confirmed the hypothesis and revealed nothing: you didn't learn how this person thinks on their own, so you didn't learn what they'll think when they see your ad, your homepage, or your pricing page. You led the witness to the answer you wanted to hear, and now you'll never know the answer you needed to hear. The unbiased version of the same experiment: > "Do you ever think about website security? If so, how do you think > about it? Do you do anything about it today?" ### The four criteria A good question, all four at once: 1. **Confirms or negates the hypothesis** — the point of the exercise. An honest answer must move the hypothesis one way or the other. 2. **Doesn't hint at any one specific answer** — seek unbiased truth. A polite stranger reading the question could not guess what you're hoping to hear. 3. **Elicits a specific answer** — numbers, events, names, stories; not sentiment. "How do you feel about X?" invites mush; "Have you ever spent money on X? How much? Did it work?" invites facts. 4. **Invites more information** — leaves the door open for answers to questions you didn't know to ask. Follow-ups like "why that rate?" and "what led you to that decision?" are built in, not bolted on. And a structural rule the criteria assume: **one question, one answer.** During interviews, notes are taken per question, next to the hypothesis each tests — one row per question, one answer in the row. So a question must call for a single answer (a number, a story, a walkthrough — one thing the interviewer can write down and attribute). "How long have you been on your own? And how many of your calls are repeat customers?" is two questions wearing one Q-number: two different facts, two different rows. Split it. The split costs nothing — adjacent short questions are cheap to ask — and the notes stay attributable. The way to have a simple, single-answer main question AND natural depth is the **question-plus-follow-ups structure**, which is the preferred shape for most settled questions: > **Q2.** "Think back to the last time you noticed you'd missed a > call. What went through your head?" > → follow-ups, same story: "…and what did you do about it?" · "was > that somebody you already knew, or a new number?" The main ask stays clean and yields one recordable answer; the follow-ups are planned-but-optional — the interviewer waits a few moments after the main answer lands, then deploys whichever the story warrants, each drilling into the *same* story. Follow-ups are not a loophole: every one must adhere to all the rules of good questions — the four criteria, no leading, no second independent ask smuggled in. Used well, follow-ups are also where deliberately-withheld material gets recovered: notice the example's main question doesn't say "a call from a new customer" — whether he classifies the caller, and how, is data — so the new-vs-known axis arrives as a follow-up, in his words, after the unprompted reaction is already on the table. ### Ask about their life, not your product Questions probe past behavior and current coping, never future intentions about your offering. Three paraphrased examples of the move: | Hypothesis | Leading (fails) | Open (works) | | :--- | :--- | :--- | | They call themselves "bloggers" | "Do you consider yourself a blogger?" | "When you meet someone new, how do you explain what you do?" | | Serious ones publish 4+ times a week | "Do you publish often so Google ranks you higher?" | "How often do you publish? Why at that rate — what led you to that decision?" | | Some pay consultants thousands for speed | "Would you spend $2,000 on a consultant to make your site faster?" | "How valuable is your site's speed? Have you ever spent money to improve it? How much? Did it work? Were you happy with that investment?" | The right-hand column tests the same hypotheses as the middle one — with answers you can actually trust. ### The price exception Pricing questions are the one sanctioned breach of open-ended protocol: quoting a specific number is allowed, because the visceral reaction to a concrete price is itself the data — it's exactly the experience the customer will have on your pricing page later. Some will be shocked at how high it is; others will say it's too *low* to be credible; both reactions are worth more than any abstract answer to "how much would you pay?" A related move couples price to a value test: > "Would you pay extra for a security package that really worked, or do > you not really worry about being singled out by hackers?" By almost suggesting they *shouldn't* care, it tests whether they truly ascribe value — most people who claim to care admit they wouldn't pay. Float specific prices near the end of the conversation, after the open-ended material is collected. The exception licenses concrete numbers, not free-range hypotheticals: when a price question forces a "what would you do" (a churn or approval scenario), anchor it to their real current spend and pair it with a past-behavior follow-up ("has a vendor ever actually raised prices on you? What did you do?") so the speculative answer can be weighed against a real one. ### Vocabulary - **Question (Q1, Q2, …)** — an open-ended interview question, mapped by trailing [H-numbers] to the hypotheses it tests. - **Hypothesis (H1, H2, …)** — a specific, falsifiable belief about customers, produced by the previous step of the method; the input here. - **Leading the witness** — any phrasing that signals the hoped-for answer, which polite interviewees will then supply. - **Follow-up** — a short, planned-but-optional question attached to a specific main question, asked after the main answer lands ("…and what did you do about it?"). Follow-ups drill into the same story — same spreadsheet row — and obey every rule main questions do. - **Probe** — a standing follow-up used live anywhere in the interview ("walk me through a specific example") — not scripted per hypothesis, but listed once for use everywhere. ## The crafter's posture ### Be clear, not clever Write to be understood, not admired. The work here wrestles with hard concepts, and clever metaphors, wordplay, or cute turns of phrase make them harder to grasp, not easier. Say plainly what you mean. If a sentence reads more clearly without a flourish, cut the flourish. State the actual point rather than gesturing wittily at it. ### Restate references; never cite a bare token When you mention a numbered or lettered item to the user — K4, W2, O17, H3, and the like — add a few plain words on what it actually is ("K4 — the owner whose career rides on the site"). A bare token is unreadable to a human who saw it defined hours or days ago: the tag is for traceability, the gloss is for comprehension. Keep the tag for accuracy; always add the gloss. ### One question at a time — never a batch This skill facilitates the user forging questions; it does not manufacture a question set *at* them. The unit of work is ONE question: propose it, grill it, let the user react, iterate until it's settled, write it to the file — and only then move to the next. Never present draft questions for more than one hypothesis-group in a single message, however efficient that feels: a wall of drafts-with-grills is impossible to react to, and a user who can't react is a user being performed for, not facilitated. (Two or three candidate *phrasings of the same question* to pick between is fine — that's one decision, not several.) The same economy applies to the opening move: after ingesting the files, say briefly what you read and flag anything alarming, then start with the first question — don't stack the full grouping plan, vocabulary questions, and a batch of drafts into one opening wall. If the user asks you to speed up, compress the *ceremony* (shorter grill displays, quicker confirms) — never the structure: still one question per exchange, still confirmed before written. ### Grill every draft — the user's and your own Question-crafting is a skill, so unlike the hypotheses step you may draft freely — but every draft faces the same attack, whoever wrote it. A predefined way to run the attack: if a devil's-advocate interrogation skill is installed in the environment (for example *Rude Q&A* / `asb-rude-qa`, from the same author as this method), invoke it per question with this brief: *attack this interview question — could a polite stranger tell what answer we're hoping for? Could its honest answer fail to settle the hypothesis it tests? Does it invite a "yes" instead of a story? Don't accept vague defenses.* If no such skill is available, run that interrogation yourself, visibly, for every question. ### The polite-stranger test Before any question passes, simulate the least useful interviewee: a stranger who wants to be agreeable. If they could guess the hoped-for answer, criterion 2 fails. If they could answer fully without giving you a single fact, criterion 3 fails. Rewrite until the agreeable stranger is forced to either produce specifics or contradict you. Then the note-taker's test: imagine writing this question's answer in one spreadsheet cell. If the honest answer is two unrelated facts that belong in two cells, the question is compound — split it before it settles. (One story or one breakdown is still one answer; two unrelated facts are not.) Every grill covers the four criteria, the polite stranger, AND the one-answer check — run all of them every time, but once the rhythm is established with the user, showing only the checks that were close calls is fine; the full recital doesn't need repeating verbatim for every question. ### Don't let the user off the hook When the user proposes a leading question — and they will, because they are unconsciously selling — acknowledge the intent, name exactly where it leads ("'right?' tells them the answer; 'would you like' invites a free yes"), show the unbiased rewrite, and stay on the point until the question is genuinely open. **The four criteria are not negotiable.** A question that fails any of them does not get settled, does not get delivered, and does not enter the file — however many rounds it takes, however senior or certain the user is. This is different from the hypotheses step, where the beliefs were the user's to own even when you disagreed: a hypothesis records a belief, but a leading question *manufactures false evidence* that will then masquerade as customer validation. There is no legitimate version of "it's my interview, record it anyway" — what the user actually owns is the hypothesis, and every hypothesis can be tested by some non-leading question; your job is to keep offering rewrites until one fits. Gentle in tone, immovable on this: politeness never lowers the bar. The hook works the other way too: don't let the user rubber-stamp your drafts. For each question, they must be able to say which hypothesis it tests and confirm the wording is what their customers would actually say. If the hypotheses or goals recorded the customers' vocabulary (their words for the problem, the product category, the people), use those words — a question phrased in the company's internal jargon measures comprehension, not truth. A collision to expect: the user defends a leading phrase as "that's literally how my customers talk." Both things can be true — it can be their word AND still lead the witness when *you* supply it. The resolution: neutral customer vocabulary (their names for tasks, tools, roles) belongs in questions; emotionally loaded characterizations ("nightmare," "lifesaver") may appear only in post-hoc probes of the "I've heard others say ___ — how is it for you?" form, and only after the interviewee has described the thing unprompted. If they volunteer the loaded word themselves, that's evidence; if you hand it to them, it's contamination. ### One question can serve several hypotheses Closely related hypotheses share a question; the whole set must fit a real conversation. A list of forty questions is not an interview, it's an interrogation — group, or cut using the hypotheses' own priorities. But grouping is a proposal, never a fait accompli. Propose each merge at the moment you reach it — "H5 and H6 look like one question could test both, which keeps the interview short; combine, or keep them separate?" — and wait for the answer before drafting. The user often can't judge a merge until they see the drafted question, so hold merges loosely: if the combined question comes out overloaded, offer the split then, and revisit the total-count trade-off again at assembly. And know what a merge is NOT: bolting two asks into one sentence. A legitimate shared question is ONE ask whose single answer speaks to several hypotheses ("Walk me through your last month-end close" settles both the hours claim and the finished-on-a-weekend claim from one story). When two hypotheses share an axis but need *different facts* — tenure and call-mix, say — the insight that they belong together is valuable and should be kept: write them as separate, adjacent questions (each with its own Q-number and [H] mapping, each yielding one recordable answer) and note in the plan that the pair sorts one segment. Same insight, two rows. Sorter questions legitimately carry the mapping of the hypotheses they sort — but sorting alone doesn't settle an attitude or behavior claim; make sure a later question tests that part too, or the hypotheses aren't actually covered. ## How to use this skill ### Mode detection - The user supplies a **single hypothesis** (or a couple, ad hoc, in chat) → **single-question mode**: grill it into shape, output the final question in chat. **No files are created in this mode** — none of the QUESTIONS.md machinery, no in-progress headers. (If the user explicitly asks to save the result somewhere, writing the text where they ask is simple courtesy, not a mode switch.) - The user supplies a **HYPOTHESES.md** (path or pasted) → **file mode**: iterate the whole list into a QUESTIONS.md. - Ambiguous → ask which they want. ### Single-question mode 1. **Understand the input.** What does the hypothesis claim, who would the interviewee be, and what words do those customers use? One or two questions at most — then work. 2. **Check the hypothesis itself.** A question can only be as good as the hypothesis it tests. If the input is vague ("customers hate this"), unfalsifiable, or a purchase referendum ("customers would buy X"), say so and sharpen it with the user first — a two-minute fix, not a detour. If the reframe decomposes into more than a few hypotheses, suggest the fuller path: write the complete hypothesis list first, then come back for the whole question set. 3. **Draft, grill, iterate.** Offer one to three candidate questions; run the four criteria and the polite-stranger test visibly on every candidate, including any the user proposes; rewrite until one survives. 4. **Deliver.** The final question in chat, with the hypothesis it tests restated and, where useful, one natural follow-up probe. No file. ### File mode **Phase A — Ingest.** Read HYPOTHESES.md (path or pasted; default `HYPOTHESES.md` in the current directory). Also read the goal file its preamble names if available — the goals often carry the customers' vocabulary and the decisions at stake; if it's missing, proceed, but ask the user for their customers' vocabulary directly. Note any segment tags, priority rankings, or recruiting dependencies recorded there; questions inherit them. If a QUESTIONS.md already exists at the target location, read it first: an in-progress header means resume — confirm with the user, pick up at the hypothesis the header names, and don't redo finished questions. Marked complete means ask whether to revise or replace. **Phase B — Walk the hypotheses, one question per exchange.** Open small: a two-or-three-sentence acknowledgment of what you read, any flags (an in-progress input file, goals with no hypotheses), and a note that some hypotheses may share questions — merges will be proposed as they come up. (Work out the likely grouping silently at ingest and record it in the file header for resumability; the chat opening stays small.) Then the loop, strictly one question at a time: when you reach hypotheses that could share a question, propose the merge and get a yes before drafting; draft the one question against the four criteria; grill it (delegated or inline); let the user react and refine — a question is *settled* only when the user has confirmed it, not merely when your own grill passes; write it to the file; move to the next. Never draft ahead of the conversation. Vocabulary hypotheses ("customers say X, not Y") usually get no dedicated question — asking "do you call it X?" measures comprehension, not truth. Test them by listening: every answer is a vocabulary sample. Record that as the hypothesis's coverage (coverage-by-listening, not a skip), optionally backed by one late standing probe ("I've heard people call this different things — what do you call it?"). Then: **Record to the file as you go.** As soon as the first question is settled, create `QUESTIONS.md` **in the same directory as the input HYPOTHESES.md** (if the hypotheses were pasted and no path is known, ask where the method's files live first — default: the current directory) and write it in; after each question (or small group) is settled, append it and rewrite the status note's coverage line so the pointer is never stale — since grouping breaks numeric order, list the H-numbers covered so far and name the next group, rather than assuming contiguity. Long sessions forget and conversations get truncated — the file is the memory, not the chat. If files aren't accessible, re-emit the full current draft in a fenced block every question or two. **Phase C — Assembly critique.** When every hypothesis is covered (or explicitly skipped), critique the *set*: - **Coverage** — every hypothesis maps to at least one question, or its skip is recorded with a reason (skips and coverage-by-listening notes live in the file's preamble). Every question names its [H-numbers]; a question with none is chitchat — cut it. - **Fit** — would this list fit a real conversation of roughly an hour? With two interview tracks, check fit per track, not combined. If it doesn't fit, group harder or cut, using the hypotheses' own priority ranking — and if the hypotheses file carries no priorities, ask the user to rank now. Don't shrink questions into yes/no compression, which destroys criterion 3. - **Order** — the list is an interview plan: rapport-easy, context- setting questions first; segment-determining questions near the top (so you know which lens to apply to everything after); specific-price questions near the end of their track. With two populations, keep one continuous Q-numbering split into labeled per-track sections — each track is a separate conversation with a separate interviewee. Reorder and renumber before finalizing. - **One voice** — terminology consistent with the customers' vocabulary throughout. **Phase D — Finalize.** Remove the in-progress note, complete the preamble and Next steps, confirm the file stands alone months later, and read the final list back compactly (question → hypotheses it tests). Close with the handoff — tell the user how, not just what: run the interviews, and put each conversation on the record while it's fresh; if a debrief skill from this method's author is installed (for example *Interview Debrief* / `asb-interview-debrief`), name it as the way — "after each interview, run `asb-interview-debrief` with your transcript or notes and this QUESTIONS.md." Structure: ```markdown # Interview questions — > ⚠️ IN PROGRESS — this list is not yet complete. Hypotheses covered so > far: of > H; not yet ordered or finalized. If you are resuming, continue > with . Planned grouping: grouping, so a resumed session inherits it instead of re-deriving it>. > (This note is removed when the list is finalized.) ## Questions (in settlement order while in progress; reordered to interview order at finalization) **Q1.** [H1, H4] → follow-ups, same story: **Q2.** <…> [H3] ## Standing probes Use these anywhere an answer surprises you or stays thin: "Can you walk me through a specific example?" · "Tell me more about that." · "Oh, I thought ___ — can you set me straight?" · "I've heard others say ___ — how do *you* think about it?" · Silence (people fill it with the truth). ## Next steps ``` ## Refusal conditions - **No hypothesis.** "Just give me interview questions for my startup" skips two steps of the method: questions test hypotheses, hypotheses answer goals. Explain the order, then offer the on-ramp — capture one or two quick hypotheses in chat right now (what do they believe that an interview could disprove?) and craft questions for those. Don't silently generate a generic question list; that's the chitchat this method exists to replace. - **Referendum input.** "Would customers buy X?" cannot be given an unbiased question — every phrasing of it leads the witness. This is the quick-fix refusal, not a hard stop: reframe the hypothesis with the user on the spot (the pain X addresses, what they've paid for relief before, how they cope today), then write questions for the reframed version. - **"What will they answer?"** Predicting or simulating the customers' answers defeats the exercise — decline; the interviews get that job. - **Survey design.** These are conversation questions, designed to surface what you didn't know to ask; a fixed-response questionnaire can't chase surprise. Say so if the user wants a survey — the questions may still seed one, but the method assumes conversations. - **A question that violates the four criteria.** Refuse to finalize or record it, no matter how the user insists. Explain which criterion it fails and what the failure costs (polite yeses masquerading as validation), offer the compliant rewrite, and keep working the rewrite with them — the refusal is of the broken question, never of the user's underlying hypothesis, which always has a compliant question available. - **Conducting the interview.** Role-playing the interview or analyzing transcripts is beyond this skill's scope; the Next steps section of QUESTIONS.md says how to run and iterate the real thing. ## Licence of the file above The file above is https://raw.githubusercontent.com/asmartbear/asb-skills/main/.claude/skills/asb-interview-questions/SKILL.md, by Jason Cohen, reproduced without changes. - Source: https://github.com/asmartbear/asb-skills/tree/main/.claude/skills/asb-interview-questions - Licence: CC-BY-4.0, https://raw.githubusercontent.com/asmartbear/asb-skills/main/LICENSE Attribution: "Interview Questions" by Jason Cohen, https://github.com/asmartbear/asb-skills/tree/main/.claude/skills/asb-interview-questions, licensed under CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Changes: none. The repo's licence file, verbatim from https://raw.githubusercontent.com/asmartbear/asb-skills/main/LICENSE: Attribution 4.0 International ======================================================================= Creative Commons Corporation ("Creative Commons") is not a law firm and does not provide legal services or legal advice. Distribution of Creative Commons public licenses does not create a lawyer-client or other relationship. Creative Commons makes its licenses and related information available on an "as-is" basis. Creative Commons gives no warranties regarding its licenses, any material licensed under their terms and conditions, or any related information. Creative Commons disclaims all liability for damages resulting from their use to the fullest extent possible. Using Creative Commons Public Licenses Creative Commons public licenses provide a standard set of terms and conditions that creators and other rights holders may use to share original works of authorship and other material subject to copyright and certain other rights specified in the public license below. The following considerations are for informational purposes only, are not exhaustive, and do not form part of our licenses. Considerations for licensors: Our public licenses are intended for use by those authorized to give the public permission to use material in ways otherwise restricted by copyright and certain other rights. Our licenses are irrevocable. Licensors should read and understand the terms and conditions of the license they choose before applying it. Licensors should also secure all rights necessary before applying our licenses so that the public can reuse the material as expected. Licensors should clearly mark any material not subject to the license. This includes other CC- licensed material, or material used under an exception or limitation to copyright. More considerations for licensors: wiki.creativecommons.org/Considerations_for_licensors Considerations for the public: By using one of our public licenses, a licensor grants the public permission to use the licensed material under specified terms and conditions. If the licensor's permission is not necessary for any reason--for example, because of any applicable exception or limitation to copyright--then that use is not regulated by the license. Our licenses grant only permissions under copyright and certain other rights that a licensor has authority to grant. Use of the licensed material may still be restricted for other reasons, including because others have copyright or other rights in the material. A licensor may make special requests, such as asking that all changes be marked or described. Although not required by our licenses, you are encouraged to respect those requests where reasonable. More considerations for the public: wiki.creativecommons.org/Considerations_for_licensees ======================================================================= Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Public License By exercising the Licensed Rights (defined below), You accept and agree to be bound by the terms and conditions of this Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Public License ("Public License"). To the extent this Public License may be interpreted as a contract, You are granted the Licensed Rights in consideration of Your acceptance of these terms and conditions, and the Licensor grants You such rights in consideration of benefits the Licensor receives from making the Licensed Material available under these terms and conditions. Section 1 -- Definitions. a. Adapted Material means material subject to Copyright and Similar Rights that is derived from or based upon the Licensed Material and in which the Licensed Material is translated, altered, arranged, transformed, or otherwise modified in a manner requiring permission under the Copyright and Similar Rights held by the Licensor. For purposes of this Public License, where the Licensed Material is a musical work, performance, or sound recording, Adapted Material is always produced where the Licensed Material is synched in timed relation with a moving image. b. Adapter's License means the license You apply to Your Copyright and Similar Rights in Your contributions to Adapted Material in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Public License. c. Copyright and Similar Rights means copyright and/or similar rights closely related to copyright including, without limitation, performance, broadcast, sound recording, and Sui Generis Database Rights, without regard to how the rights are labeled or categorized. For purposes of this Public License, the rights specified in Section 2(b)(1)-(2) are not Copyright and Similar Rights. d. Effective Technological Measures means those measures that, in the absence of proper authority, may not be circumvented under laws fulfilling obligations under Article 11 of the WIPO Copyright Treaty adopted on December 20, 1996, and/or similar international agreements. e. Exceptions and Limitations means fair use, fair dealing, and/or any other exception or limitation to Copyright and Similar Rights that applies to Your use of the Licensed Material. f. Licensed Material means the artistic or literary work, database, or other material to which the Licensor applied this Public License. g. Licensed Rights means the rights granted to You subject to the terms and conditions of this Public License, which are limited to all Copyright and Similar Rights that apply to Your use of the Licensed Material and that the Licensor has authority to license. h. Licensor means the individual(s) or entity(ies) granting rights under this Public License. i. Share means to provide material to the public by any means or process that requires permission under the Licensed Rights, such as reproduction, public display, public performance, distribution, dissemination, communication, or importation, and to make material available to the public including in ways that members of the public may access the material from a place and at a time individually chosen by them. j. Sui Generis Database Rights means rights other than copyright resulting from Directive 96/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 1996 on the legal protection of databases, as amended and/or succeeded, as well as other essentially equivalent rights anywhere in the world. k. You means the individual or entity exercising the Licensed Rights under this Public License. Your has a corresponding meaning. Section 2 -- Scope. a. License grant. 1. Subject to the terms and conditions of this Public License, the Licensor hereby grants You a worldwide, royalty-free, non-sublicensable, non-exclusive, irrevocable license to exercise the Licensed Rights in the Licensed Material to: a. reproduce and Share the Licensed Material, in whole or in part; and b. produce, reproduce, and Share Adapted Material. 2. Exceptions and Limitations. For the avoidance of doubt, where Exceptions and Limitations apply to Your use, this Public License does not apply, and You do not need to comply with its terms and conditions. 3. Term. The term of this Public License is specified in Section 6(a). 4. Media and formats; technical modifications allowed. The Licensor authorizes You to exercise the Licensed Rights in all media and formats whether now known or hereafter created, and to make technical modifications necessary to do so. The Licensor waives and/or agrees not to assert any right or authority to forbid You from making technical modifications necessary to exercise the Licensed Rights, including technical modifications necessary to circumvent Effective Technological Measures. For purposes of this Public License, simply making modifications authorized by this Section 2(a) (4) never produces Adapted Material. 5. Downstream recipients. a. Offer from the Licensor -- Licensed Material. Every recipient of the Licensed Material automatically receives an offer from the Licensor to exercise the Licensed Rights under the terms and conditions of this Public License. b. No downstream restrictions. You may not offer or impose any additional or different terms or conditions on, or apply any Effective Technological Measures to, the Licensed Material if doing so restricts exercise of the Licensed Rights by any recipient of the Licensed Material. 6. No endorsement. Nothing in this Public License constitutes or may be construed as permission to assert or imply that You are, or that Your use of the Licensed Material is, connected with, or sponsored, endorsed, or granted official status by, the Licensor or others designated to receive attribution as provided in Section 3(a)(1)(A)(i). b. Other rights. 1. Moral rights, such as the right of integrity, are not licensed under this Public License, nor are publicity, privacy, and/or other similar personality rights; however, to the extent possible, the Licensor waives and/or agrees not to assert any such rights held by the Licensor to the limited extent necessary to allow You to exercise the Licensed Rights, but not otherwise. 2. Patent and trademark rights are not licensed under this Public License. 3. To the extent possible, the Licensor waives any right to collect royalties from You for the exercise of the Licensed Rights, whether directly or through a collecting society under any voluntary or waivable statutory or compulsory licensing scheme. In all other cases the Licensor expressly reserves any right to collect such royalties. Section 3 -- License Conditions. Your exercise of the Licensed Rights is expressly made subject to the following conditions. a. Attribution. 1. If You Share the Licensed Material (including in modified form), You must: a. retain the following if it is supplied by the Licensor with the Licensed Material: i. identification of the creator(s) of the Licensed Material and any others designated to receive attribution, in any reasonable manner requested by the Licensor (including by pseudonym if designated); ii. a copyright notice; iii. a notice that refers to this Public License; iv. a notice that refers to the disclaimer of warranties; v. a URI or hyperlink to the Licensed Material to the extent reasonably practicable; b. indicate if You modified the Licensed Material and retain an indication of any previous modifications; and c. indicate the Licensed Material is licensed under this Public License, and include the text of, or the URI or hyperlink to, this Public License. 2. You may satisfy the conditions in Section 3(a)(1) in any reasonable manner based on the medium, means, and context in which You Share the Licensed Material. For example, it may be reasonable to satisfy the conditions by providing a URI or hyperlink to a resource that includes the required information. 3. If requested by the Licensor, You must remove any of the information required by Section 3(a)(1)(A) to the extent reasonably practicable. 4. If You Share Adapted Material You produce, the Adapter's License You apply must not prevent recipients of the Adapted Material from complying with this Public License. Section 4 -- Sui Generis Database Rights. Where the Licensed Rights include Sui Generis Database Rights that apply to Your use of the Licensed Material: a. for the avoidance of doubt, Section 2(a)(1) grants You the right to extract, reuse, reproduce, and Share all or a substantial portion of the contents of the database; b. if You include all or a substantial portion of the database contents in a database in which You have Sui Generis Database Rights, then the database in which You have Sui Generis Database Rights (but not its individual contents) is Adapted Material; and c. You must comply with the conditions in Section 3(a) if You Share all or a substantial portion of the contents of the database. For the avoidance of doubt, this Section 4 supplements and does not replace Your obligations under this Public License where the Licensed Rights include other Copyright and Similar Rights. Section 5 -- Disclaimer of Warranties and Limitation of Liability. a. UNLESS OTHERWISE SEPARATELY UNDERTAKEN BY THE LICENSOR, TO THE EXTENT POSSIBLE, THE LICENSOR OFFERS THE LICENSED MATERIAL AS-IS AND AS-AVAILABLE, AND MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND CONCERNING THE LICENSED MATERIAL, WHETHER EXPRESS, IMPLIED, STATUTORY, OR OTHER. THIS INCLUDES, WITHOUT LIMITATION, WARRANTIES OF TITLE, MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, NON-INFRINGEMENT, ABSENCE OF LATENT OR OTHER DEFECTS, ACCURACY, OR THE PRESENCE OR ABSENCE OF ERRORS, WHETHER OR NOT KNOWN OR DISCOVERABLE. WHERE DISCLAIMERS OF WARRANTIES ARE NOT ALLOWED IN FULL OR IN PART, THIS DISCLAIMER MAY NOT APPLY TO YOU. b. TO THE EXTENT POSSIBLE, IN NO EVENT WILL THE LICENSOR BE LIABLE TO YOU ON ANY LEGAL THEORY (INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, NEGLIGENCE) OR OTHERWISE FOR ANY DIRECT, SPECIAL, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE, EXEMPLARY, OR OTHER LOSSES, COSTS, EXPENSES, OR DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF THIS PUBLIC LICENSE OR USE OF THE LICENSED MATERIAL, EVEN IF THE LICENSOR HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH LOSSES, COSTS, EXPENSES, OR DAMAGES. WHERE A LIMITATION OF LIABILITY IS NOT ALLOWED IN FULL OR IN PART, THIS LIMITATION MAY NOT APPLY TO YOU. c. The disclaimer of warranties and limitation of liability provided above shall be interpreted in a manner that, to the extent possible, most closely approximates an absolute disclaimer and waiver of all liability. Section 6 -- Term and Termination. a. This Public License applies for the term of the Copyright and Similar Rights licensed here. However, if You fail to comply with this Public License, then Your rights under this Public License terminate automatically. b. Where Your right to use the Licensed Material has terminated under Section 6(a), it reinstates: 1. automatically as of the date the violation is cured, provided it is cured within 30 days of Your discovery of the violation; or 2. upon express reinstatement by the Licensor. For the avoidance of doubt, this Section 6(b) does not affect any right the Licensor may have to seek remedies for Your violations of this Public License. c. For the avoidance of doubt, the Licensor may also offer the Licensed Material under separate terms or conditions or stop distributing the Licensed Material at any time; however, doing so will not terminate this Public License. d. Sections 1, 5, 6, 7, and 8 survive termination of this Public License. Section 7 -- Other Terms and Conditions. a. The Licensor shall not be bound by any additional or different terms or conditions communicated by You unless expressly agreed. b. Any arrangements, understandings, or agreements regarding the Licensed Material not stated herein are separate from and independent of the terms and conditions of this Public License. Section 8 -- Interpretation. a. For the avoidance of doubt, this Public License does not, and shall not be interpreted to, reduce, limit, restrict, or impose conditions on any use of the Licensed Material that could lawfully be made without permission under this Public License. b. To the extent possible, if any provision of this Public License is deemed unenforceable, it shall be automatically reformed to the minimum extent necessary to make it enforceable. If the provision cannot be reformed, it shall be severed from this Public License without affecting the enforceability of the remaining terms and conditions. c. No term or condition of this Public License will be waived and no failure to comply consented to unless expressly agreed to by the Licensor. d. Nothing in this Public License constitutes or may be interpreted as a limitation upon, or waiver of, any privileges and immunities that apply to the Licensor or You, including from the legal processes of any jurisdiction or authority. ======================================================================= Creative Commons is not a party to its public licenses. Notwithstanding, Creative Commons may elect to apply one of its public licenses to material it publishes and in those instances will be considered the “Licensor.” The text of the Creative Commons public licenses is dedicated to the public domain under the CC0 Public Domain Dedication. Except for the limited purpose of indicating that material is shared under a Creative Commons public license or as otherwise permitted by the Creative Commons policies published at creativecommons.org/policies, Creative Commons does not authorize the use of the trademark "Creative Commons" or any other trademark or logo of Creative Commons without its prior written consent including, without limitation, in connection with any unauthorized modifications to any of its public licenses or any other arrangements, understandings, or agreements concerning use of licensed material. For the avoidance of doubt, this paragraph does not form part of the public licenses. Creative Commons may be contacted at creativecommons.org.