development of an education license or license option for Creative Commons

[Glenn Otis Brown <glenn AT creativecommons.org>]

> 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"????


let me see if i have your logic straight.

you're saying that if we offer a license we don't currently have, then
we're being tyrannical? you're saying that if content that is currently 
all rights reserved is freed for educational uses because of this 
license, that this is a loss for liberty? interesting.

but put that logic aside. please try some constructive criticism. if 
all you have to offer is
capital letters and a suggestion that we start our organization over 
from
scratch, after your coming in late to a conversation -- a conversation 
that
began months ago, to which you've contributed zero of anything positive
-- then please re-consider participating. or, just be ready for us to
stop wasting our time responding to you.

dogma and ideology, no matter how passionately advocated or zealously 
embraced, don't do much, particularly when they're expressed in this 
fashion.

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

actually, yes. a lot of people put a lot of work into it. not lines and 
lines of complaint. actual work. it's because of this work, and the 
work of predecessors like david wiley, and of the licensors out there 
who have joined the cause, that there is content available today. that 
content wasn't available two years ago. but i guess because we haven't 
thrown a bomb into the gears of all IP law, by your thinking, we're 
sell-outs. it's exactly this kind of extremist thinking that is ruining 
the debate.

i myself would rather be the kind of person who has helped build a pool 
of content that would otherwise be fully copyrighted than a gadfly with 
a lot of strong opinions and no content.


thanks,

glenn



On Feb 11, 2004, at 11:08 AM, email AT greglondon.com wrote:

> 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.
>
>
>
>
> 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.
> _______________________________________________
> cc-education mailing list
> cc-education AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-education