[cc-licenses] cc-licenses Digest, Vol 36, Issue 5
email at greglondon.com
Mon Mar 6 10:20:43 EST 2006
>> Quoting Adam Fields <cc-licenses345982 at aquick.org>:
>> > Is this contrary to the spirit of creative commons?
No, that is exactly what Creative Commons set out to enable.
> I think that the problem may arise from the name itself.
> "Creative Commons" ... They do not in fact have
> "a common pool to draw on" in creating new works in
> keeping with their ideals.
I was never thrilled over the name "Creative Commons"
because not all CC licenses have anything to do with
what we think of as a commons: a shared pasture or
any sort of Public Domain.
I would have rather seen them use a name such as
"Creative Copyright" or "Some Rights Reserved" or
something that didn't invoke the image of a shared
public domain work. But a name is a minor quibble.
I still support the idea behind CC. And at least
some of their licenses do in fact support a commons,
it's just left to the people to decide whether they'll
> Of course, I may be missing the mark completely with this thought.
>> - Rob.
> all the best,
> Record a song and you might win $1,000.00
> cc-licenses mailing list
> cc-licenses at lists.ibiblio.org
Bounty Hunters: Metaphors for Fair IP laws
More information about the cc-licenses