development of an education license or license option for Creative Commons

[Ben Crowell <cceducrowell03 AT lightandmatter.com>]

I wrote:
>There are many laudable goals that are nevertheless inappropriate for
>CC in my opinion. At my school, there is a program to donate physical
>books to Ethiopia. It's great, but it has nothing to do with the concept
>of the /commons/. Likewise, the proposed cc.edu license seems to me to
>violate the concept of a commons. It's not a commons if it provides a
>way of excluding people. Logically, we could next have the cc.god license,
>to be used only in churches.

Dave Wiley wrote:
>Interesting examples again.  =)
>
>So why doesn't the traditional cc offend you? By your definition it
>can't have anything to do with the /commons/ either, since every cc
>places restrictions either on attribution, commercial use, derivative
>works, or some combination thereof. Is the public domain dedication the
>only license acceptable to you?

My understanding of the concept of the commons is that it's like the village 
green,
where anyone can go. The existing cc licenses are open to everyone, and don't
try to exclude classes of people. I do like them, and that's why I changed
my books to a cc license.

As I see it, the proposed cc.edu license violates the concept of a commons, 
because it excludes certain people. For instance, suppose you're an
impoverished adult in the US living in a state with no community college 
system.
You have access to the internet at the public library, but you can't afford
to attend college. Because of your condition, you're excluded from the
cc.edu license.

The existing cc licenses exclude certain types of use, without excluding 
certain
types of people.