development of an education license or license option for Creative Commons

[email AT greglondon.com]

On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 18:57:44 +0900, Glenn Otis Brown wrote:
> 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.

no, I'm saying CC.org can't call itself a commons and
have a mission statement that associates it with open source software
while at the same time offer licenses as restrictive as
CC-BY-NC-ND-EDUONLY without something being out of whack.

> 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, 

wow, you guys love straw man attacks. I never said anything as
absurd as start over from scratch. I'm saying either (1) hold true
to the commons name and mission statement and get rid of licenses
that don't line up with that OR (2) mark the licenses that aren't
public-commons-type licenses as being restrictive.


> > 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.

CC can't cloak itself in phrases in its mission statement like:
"We use private rights to create public goods"
without deliniating in SOME way which licenses actually create
public goods and which are interesting sales gimmicks.

Another line from the mission statement:
"Like the free software and open-source movements, our ends 
are cooperative and community-minded"
but some CC licenses would be rejected by the free software
and open source communities that CC wishes to associate itself
with. And nothing indicates which licenses would be accepted
and which would be rejected.

"Taking inspiration in part from the Free Software Foundation's 
GNU General Public License (GNU GPL)"
inpiration perhaps, but not all licenses on CC are as free and
open as GPL and nothing indicates which licenses are and which
licenses aren't.

Someone with no exposure to free-software and open-source
would come to Creative-Commons, read the mission statement,
and likely assume that any CC license is like a
free-software license. Then they get a CC-BY-ND-NC license,
put it on their music or photo or video, and think they're
part of teh open-source movement, when nothing would be
further from the truth.

No bombs getting thrown into IP law. No extremist thinking
of that nature. By the way, when you twist what I say into 
something so patently absurd, its called a strawman attack. 
and its a cheap shot.

CC needs to be responsible for what it says in its
mission statement, versus what it provides in its licenses.

You want it in the form of "constructive criticism"? 
I'll boil it down for you.
On the "Select a license" CC webpage, 
when someone comes in and selects
CC-BY-NC-ND
there should be something that points
out to the reader that such a license,
while better than "all rights reserved",
is not a public commons license, 
does not fit the open source definition,
is far more restrictive than GNU-GPL,
and won't create any "public goods".

CC-BY-NC-ND is a closed license. 
But nothing on the CC website that I've found
indicates that.