Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Mike Linksvayer <ml AT creativecommons.org>]

email AT greglondon.com wrote:
> So, if I license my work CC-SA, you're telling me that people
> can take my work, derive it, and tack on any two-letter
> acronym they want onto the license, turning it into
> CC-SA-NC or CC-SA-BY or CC-SA-ND ????

Not any two letter acronym, but any more restrictive SA license provided
by CC, yeah.  That's what the 2.0 draft says.

> If I wanted my work to be non-commercial, I would have put the
> two extra initials on myself.

Can't argue against that.  We'll see.

> A re-education might be needed, for contributers, and
> even for Creative Commons people themselves. Non-Commercial
> is Non-Sense. As long as any derived works remain 'public'
> through some Copyleft or Sharealike license, the community
> gains.

_I_ agree that the community gains upon the release of any new libre
work, in a commercial context or not.  While the education needs to
happen, I suspect the "media"-producing "community" is many years from
being in sync with the open source community, and I think there's value
in giving such people a legally sound way to share their work in a
gratis manner, giving users the legal rights that correspond to actual
use of content distributed on the net.

> Oh, you could offer CC-PD as well. for people who are
> truly altruistic and wish to give their works to the
> world with no strings attached.

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/publicdomain/

To choose via http://creativecommons.org/license/ click on the PD icon
on the left or don't choose any restrictions (i.e., leave the default
answers) and the PD dedication will be suggested.

Good points all around, thanks for the input.

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