development of an education license or license option for Creative Commons

[email AT greglondon.com]

On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 21:28:12 -0700, David Wiley wrote:
> email AT greglondon.com wrote:  
> > If it ain't a commons, it shouldn't be on this website
> > or it should be clearly delineated with a message:
> > "This license will not put your work in a public commons"
> 
> Isn't this for Creative Commons to decide? I know that sounds like a 
> silly question, but shouldn't they be allowed to judge for themselves 
> what is a commons and what isn't, and whether an educational commons is 
> a thing worth trying to facilitate or not?

according to http://creativecommons.org/discuss
> Sign up to take part in the development of any of the projects below.
so I had the impression that any such decision was a 
function of this discussion. or does that exclude dissenters?

All I'm saying is CreativeCommons needs to decide if its about 

(1) a commons, as in a public commons that a cow eating
in a pasture connotates, and that everyone ELSE assumes
when they hear commons, or about 

(2) a spectrum or licenses, in which case, they can provide 
a license that is one step removed from "All Rights Reserved", 
but then they should NOT be doing it under the label of COMMONS 
with a cow mascot and text like 

http://creativecommons.org/learn/aboutus/

"We use private rights to create >>public<< goods: 
creative works set >>free<< for certain uses. Like the 
>>free software<< and >>open-source<< movements, 
our ends are cooperative and >>community<<-minded,"

Because "public" and "free" and "community" mean 
certain things, except for humpty-dumpty types that make 
them mean whatever they want, and terms like 
"free software" and "open source" have definitions
and standards upon which some licenses meet the
requirements and some dont. 

education-only does not.