Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Evan Prodromou <evan AT wikitravel.org>]

>>>>> "RM" == Rob Myers <robmyers AT mac.com> writes:

    RM> Too many licenses will dilute the brand as you point out. But
    RM> just a few licenses that aren't really commons/open/free
    RM> licenses will destroy value in the brand and, worse, give that
    RM> value to people who have no intention of returning it. Being
    RM> popular by writing weaker licenses would not be as great a
    RM> success as educating people to use stronger licenses.

I happen to agree with you on this, and I think that just as we've
seen free-beer licenses fall by the wayside in the Free Software
world, we're going to see them disappear in the Free Culture world,
too.

But realistically I don't think that Free-as-in-Freedom Culture is a
goal of Creative Commons. Which is fine: CC does great work.

I think it might be something that another group could or should do:

  * make a definition of Free Culture or Open Culture along the same
    lines as the Open Source Definition
  * list and comment on available Open Culture licenses (GFDL, by-sa,
    by, sa, DSL, Green Music License, etc.)
  * make arguments to artists, publishers, and aficionados about the
    value of Free Culture

Anyways, that's my thoughts on the matter. I'm not sure if it's
pertinent to the too-many-licenses problem, but that's beside the
point.

~ESP

-- 
Evan Prodromou <evan AT wikitravel.org>
Wikitravel - http://www.wikitravel.org/
The free, complete, up-to-date and reliable world-wide travel guide