[cc-licenses] 4.0 NonCommercial
g.m.hagedorn at gmail.com
Sat Jan 14 04:07:55 EST 2012
On 13 January 2012 18:41, Greg London <email at greglondon.com> wrote:
> Creative Commons, despite having "commons" in its name, is not entirely
> devoted to licensing what would be called "Free" phenomenom.
I personally endorse the position of CC to not only support fully
open, but also to seek models in-between. However, I think it would be
timely if CC were to strengthen the differentiation between open and
non-open licenses, by applying different branding, either separate, or
under a common umbrella to these groups. Given the present
incompatibility between various licenses, many (especially individual)
users are being mislead.
More information about the cc-licenses