Development of Creative Commons licenses

["Greg London" <email AT greglondon.com>]

Evan Prodromou said:
> I think an additional license element to require source availability
> would be really useful.

Useful, yes.
Worth the overhead, maybe.
Required for a successful open project, no.

Given the CC 2.0 licenses are cooked, it might be interesting
to work "Source Availability" into the licensing scheme as a
"Bolt-on". i.e. this work is licensed CC-SA-SRC
Though I can't think of any other CC license it would make
sense to bolt-on to...

Anyway. I suppose the overhead is mostly the annoyances that
comes with people trying to figure out what the heck this
source availability clause means.

I just haven't seen a CC project that was big enough to require
source, prohibit patents, etc, etc, that are the sort of overly
restrictive license options needed for a big, massive, long-term
project to survive. Maybe if the options were in the licenses,
the projects would pop into existence.

Should there be a patent exclusion clause too?
Something that prohibits encryption and avoids any DMCA-leveraged
restrictions?

I don't know the answer, but they seem to be valid questions.