Development of Creative Commons licenses

[toddd AT mypse.goracer.de]

> 
> I believe that people misunderstood the differences between attribution and
> nonattribution in 1.0: I think that even if you chose nonattribution you
> still got your name mentioned in the copyrights as part of the licensing (is
> that right?).

Unless somebody deliberatly choses not to mention you and strips your name. 
But
if you chose nd that won't be a problem because he is not allowed to change 
the
files. So you could still have your name in the ID3 tags of an MP3 file and 
DJs
could play your song without having to say something like "and the following
song is by..."

> You can give permission to waive along with the copyright/licensing block as
> suggested in one of the postings.

1st: I only found out about this option when I read throug the maling list
archive. Do you want everybody who wants a license without attribution to read
through the mailing list archive.

2nd: I don't want a license I have to make manual changes to to make it work.


> See the BSD/GPL conflict. People just like different things. CC are 
> providing
> a good range of licenses that will satisfy most people whilst remaining
> conceptually compatible. I personally think all licenses should be GPL-like.
> This wouldn't be a popular position for CC. :-)

Currently, there is not a single free CC 2.0 license. They are ALL non-free. 
The
current CC is a smack in the face of the free software movement...


-Toddd