[cc-licenses] Alex Bosworth: "Creative Commons Is Broken"
mia at creativecommons.org
Mon Mar 6 17:25:37 EST 2006
i am sorry you were not able to find the guidelines linked to the
text in that blog post which said: "these guidelines have been posted
here." i am also sorry that these guidelines escaped your attention
when i sent an email to this same list entitled "Discussion Draft -
here (again) are the guidelines.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 93058 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/attachments/20060306/fafdd587/attachment.pdf
-------------- next part --------------
because they are a discussion draft, it is not appropriate to post
them more prominently on the CC website.
On Mar 6, 2006, at 2:15 PM, Greg London wrote:
> You refer to
> but that doesn't contain any guidelines.
> That weblog entry contains links to:
> A post by you in April 2005 saying NC meant NotForProfit,
> that money could exchange hands
> A post by me in response to your "NotForProfit" explanation
> that you label as "considerable consternation"
> A link to a "non commercial use case" which explains how
> one website (Schmap) uses the NonComemrcial license.
> A link to your international affiliates:
> A link to Laura Lynch's entry on CC's "About" page:
> A link to a post by Bruno Nessuno on the CC-License mailing
> list asking about how to use NC in Jan 2006
> A link to a post by you on the CC-License mailing list
> talking that looks quite a bit like weblog/entry/5752
> A link to join the CC-License page
> None of the links in the weblog entry 5752 are actually the
> Proposed NonCommercial Guidelines. I had to go through them
> twice before I figured out that they were contained in a
> link in your Jan 2006 post to CC-Licenses. At the bottom,
> after half a dozen other URL's.
> For those who are still with me, the guidelines are posted
> Which is a very long and unruly URL to be passing around.
> And as far as I can tell, the only access to it is via
> the CC-License archives, which isn't exactly a cake-walk
> to wander through when you're looking for an old post.
> Believe me, I've waded through the archives on a rare and
> painful occaision.
> If you would like to enable a discussion about these guidelines,
> may I recommend creating a short page that has at the very top
> some title such as Non Commercial Guidlines and a link to the PDF?
> Then in the middle, put an explanation as to the background
> and why these guidelines were created. Use as few links as
> possible. Links to mailing list archives should be dropped.
> Have a paragraph that explains what exactly you're looking
> for (feedback? changes? requests for changes? complaints?
> concerns?) and how you would like to recieve that feedback
> (I assume the CC-License list?)
> And then have at the very bottom, a link to the PDF in
> big bold letters that says "Read the guidelines here".
> Then, on the front page of http://www.creativecommons.org
> one of your webheads needs to add a link that says something
> like "NonCommercial Guidelines here".
> The page must be accessible easily from the top.
> If you want this discussed by lots of poeple,
> make sure anyone who comes to CC's main website
> can find it. Make it so that anyone who is discussing
> these guidelines can find them without going into the
> mailing list archives. Generally, when I'm discussing
> some license on the mailing list, I go to Creative Commons
> main page, then surf down to the license text. THen I only
> have to remember http://www.creativecommons.org, I don't
> have to bookmark anything, and I don't have to keep old
> emails around in my inbox.
> It should also have a nice URL such as
> so that those who want to really go through it with a fine
> tooth comb can bookmark it and pass it around in an email
> to their friends without the line wrapping function
> cutting the URL in half, or thirds.
> Greg "considerable consternation" London
>> so people criticising CC for a vague definition of NonCommercial is
>> wearing a little thin with me. for 9 months we worked on some
>> guidelines to try to encapsulate what the different communities
>> understood "NonCommercial" to mean....a discussion draft of the
>> guidelines was posted on January 10, 2006; see: http://
>> so far there have been 2 comments on these. if you think the
>> definition is too vague & CC should do something to clarify it -
>> let's discuss these guidelines!!!
>> On Mar 6, 2006, at 7:39 AM, rob at robmyers.org wrote:
>>> "At MashupCamp the other day, I addressed a couple of my concerns
>>> about Creative
>>> Commons to Larry Lessig."
>>> Via Rumori.
>>> - Rob.
>>> cc-licenses mailing list
>>> cc-licenses at lists.ibiblio.org
>> cc-licenses mailing list
>> cc-licenses at lists.ibiblio.org
> Bounty Hunters: Metaphors for Fair IP laws
> cc-licenses mailing list
> cc-licenses at lists.ibiblio.org
More information about the cc-licenses