development of an education license or license option for Creative Commons

[email AT greglondon.com]

my vote, though I suspect the "Electoral College" will 
ignore my input.

1. require attribution
yes

This is actually the ONLY requirement that has any statistical backing,
by the way.

2. disallow commercial uses
NO. 

3. allow only uses primarily and purposively intended to facilitate learning
NO

4. require that modified works - if distributed -  be distributed under 
the same license
YES, I'm assuming this uses the same wording as the ShareAlike license.

5. require that modified works - if distributed - be distributed with a 
mechanism for determining what changes have been made to the original

no - good grief the overhead would be monstrous

6. allow use by anyone whose use meets the above guidelines regardless 
of affiliation

ACK! ("ack" should be interpreted as a "no" vote)

a copyright license cant "ALLOW USE". it can allow people to
copy,distribute,and create derived works. To 'allow use' 
would require a contract, not a license. A license can
grant the right to copy,distribute, and modify the work 
to people of the 'education world', but an intructor could
distribute the work to a student at a one-day course, and then
the student could take the work with them back to XYZ Corp
and USE it for anything they want. The former student
just can't copy,distribute,or create derived works because
they no longer qualify as "educationally" affiliated.


7. provide an option which allows the licensor to restrict use to 
individuals affiliated with an educational institution only

ACK ACK! see above

8. expand 7. above to include individuals affiliated with non-profit 
organizations with primarily educational missions in addition to 
individuals affiliated with educational institutions

ACK ACK ACK!

Hats off to the list for having the audacity to propose something
as over-the-top as creating a shink-wrap-license-contract that
also restricts "use" of the work to education-only. Copyright law
was not enough, apparently, which can only grant the right to
copy, distribute, and create derived works.

This is so far removed from any notion of a "commons" and any
interpretation of the spirit of the Open Source Definition
that I just gotta say, "wow, someone's got some big cahonas"