development of an education license or license option for Creative Commons

["David Palmer." <davidpalmer AT westnet.com.au>]

On Thu, 2003-12-11 at 17:30, Heather Ford wrote:
> Sorry, but I'm still not exactly sure where the precise sticking points 
> are. From what I can see it is the disagreement over whether the license 
> should apply to only formal or both formal and informal education? 
> 
> I think that if we are really serious about finding out what people think 
> about the licenses, then we need to extend the survey - and ask questions 
> that apply to specific circumstances/scenarios so that people can apply 
> the philosophy to actual real-world contexts. This is especially important 
> for the 'share-alike' clause which is difficult to comprehend if you don't 
> apply it to specific circumstances. I also think that there are different 
> stakeholders involved in this issue, and that all of their standpoints 
> need to be taken into account.
> 
> If someone can provide me with a list of the 'sticking points', then I can 
> summarise where we are at and we can take the discussion further.
> 
Yes, I'm afraid that I consider that this whole 'electronic voting'
scenario is one that I simply cannot relate to as a productive
procedure.

'Sticking points' are not obvious because they are not specified within
any forum. An open source project is conducted within the public domain.
Where is the public domain?
Within the commons, the statement is made, the debate begins, progresses
and terminates in the cross spectrum common viewpoint. Undebated
statements made without the evolutionary public environment, is like an
existentialist without a phenomenology. The interrelationship is
required to supply relevance. 

I didn't participate in the vote because I have been inundated with
work, and I simply didn't have the time or energy to devote, but I do
comprehend Stephens' viewpoint.
To deny the right of an individual to self study is class victimization.
These individuals are generally not what could be classified as
privileged, and even if society persists in failing to understand the
principle, if you retard the progress of one aspect of the social
spectrum, you degrade and retard the standard of the whole.

But this is the perception from Nietzsches' justice and the just man,
and not from the viewpoint of social law.

There appear to be aspects in this venture that haven't been adequately
explored.
If we must do it again, we must do it again.
Regards,

David.