[cc-community] Intellectual Highway Department

Greg London teloscorbin at gmail.com
Wed May 31 19:44:53 EDT 2006


On 5/31/06, Terry Hancock <hancock at anansispaceworks.com> wrote:
> But my point is this: CC is already eating lead over promoting NC
> licenses to begin with.  Nevertheless, CC folks stubbornly support
> NC because "it's the most popular license".

I support the CC-NC license as a viable tool for cathedral projects.
I don't care that the organization is called Creative Commons.
The license works. It solves a problem. It isn't a "commons"
problem, but to get upset because Creative Commons
should only do "commons" license because of the word
"commons" is in the name of the organization is like
getting upset at General Electric because they went and
built a jet engine and that has nothing to do with electricity.

You've overextended yourself there.
If you think CC's website needs more education/clarification,
I might support that. But I'm not tied to the name so closely
that CC must be a one-horse shop.

> But look at the stats: NC-SA /is/ quite popular --
>
> 34.03% -- and THE SINGLE MOST POPULAR LICENSE.

> Obviously NC-SA is capturing some serious mindshare with artists.
>
> What do those people want?

I don't know for sure. I think there are some who want to maintain
controll of their work, but think putting a CC-NC-SA license on their
work will somehow magically invoke the ShareAlike fairies to come
and work on their stuff.

But I also think there are some who wouldn't mind contributing
their stuff under a straight CC-SA license, but simply can't
figure out how to do that and still make some money doing it.

And, like I keep saying, the license doesn't solve that problem.
If the project is in rocky terrain, and they can't figure out how
to make it work, they fall back to the license they figure is safe.

That isn't CC's fault. That isn't the creator's fault.
It's simply the nature of the terrain. If you want
to fix that, I suggest finding something that interests
you, something that you know really well, figure
out a way to make that space friendly
to a bazaar model, figure out a way to make it
chunkable, find a goal that is big enough to inspire
but small enough to be realistic in some timeframe,
come up with some short term milestones, and
let 'er rip.

If you solve the terrain problem, a simple copyleft
license will suffice, and it will be easy and natural
for people to contribute their time freely.

> Can't we find a way to deliver what these artists want,
> instead of a fake?

If they want a commons project but aren't usign a commons license,
it's probably because the project terrain hasn't been leveled yet.
The license won't do that, but some tool or other capability might.

floss encyclopedias had been tried before.
I believe there was one that someone tried
that required people submit their changes and
then had to wait for those changes to get "approved"
and it was all very rocky terrain.

Then someone invented the wiki tool,
and someone else figured it would be good for
an encyclopedia, and pow.

the wiki was a tool that bulldozed a lot of
previously rocky terrain to make it easy to
contribute to text=based projects. Combine that
with the natural chunkability of encyclopedia
articles, and a bazaar solution becomes natural.

What project, exactly, were you interested in
creating?



More information about the cc-community mailing list