Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Mike Linksvayer <ml AT creativecommons.org>]

Per I. Mathisen wrote:
> Offering both CC-SA and CC-BY-SA at the same time while being incompatible
> is silly. Too easy to lose the ability to share with another CC project by
> 'accident'.

FWIW there's a possibility of making attribution non-optional.  Few 
people have chosen a sa, nd, nc, nd-nc or nc-sa license.  Enlightened 
people who can live without legally mandated attribution tend to use the 
PD declaration.

> The 'no-commercial' clause is really bad for community projects. It places
> a restriction that is very hard to interpret, and there is no longer any
> one copyright holder who can clear up any confusion or give explicit
> permissions.

I agree, but I don't know if that's a strong reason to not offer NC 
(which isn't going to happen anyway).  People aren't idiots, and natural 
sorting occurs.  For example, in the music space Opsound.org uses by-sa, 
while Magnatune.com uses by-nc-sa.

--
  Mike Linksvayer
  http://creativecommons.org/learn/aboutus/people#21