development of an education license or license option for Creative Commons

[email AT greglondon.com]

On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 14:06:05 -0800, Heather Ford wrote:
> I think that the default in this early stage should 
> definitely be *MORE CHOICE* rather than less.

more choice in licenses means 
more restrictions in rights given for a work.

Does "CreativeCommons" mean ANYTHING?
or is it just a convenient URL under
which licenses as restrictive as
CC-BY-NC-ND-EDUONLY can be bandied
about under the banner of *MORE CHOICE*,
under the argument of "some rights
are better than no rights"????

Do the people behind Creative Commons have
any commitment behind its NAME or its 
stated MISSION?

How can the MISSION statement say stuff like
"Like the free software and open-source movements, 
our ends are cooperative and community-minded"
when you forward and encourage some licenses that
have NOTHING to do with open-source and nothing
to do with a public commons?

You can adopt whatever licenses you want,
and you can do it by tyrannical decree for
all I care. I'm just point out to the 
people behind CreativeCommons.org that
WHAT YOU SAY AND WHAT YOU DO ARE NOT LINING UP.

If you're going to offer licenses like
CC-BY-NC-ND-EDUONLY, then you need to 
take the cow in the commons off your 
front page and you need to stop associating
yourself so closely with open source software
projects and idea in your mission statement.

Otherwise, calling yourselves a commons and 
having mission statements that associate you
with the open source movement is irresponsible.