Development of Creative Commons licenses

[nono2sco <nono2sco AT yahoo.com>]

Thanks for your response Bob,

I was trying to be discrete and not draw GrokLaw into
this by name, but now you have made that no longer
necessary.

Do you feel that my 4 questions in any way mistated
the facts?

Also, I just saw that some changes have been made to
the Mission Statement and Comments Policy today,
subsequent to my posting the original questions, but
apparently they still append conditions to the CCL,
something that does not seem to coincide with the
intent of the CCL.  Other parts have been changed to
soften statements pointed out in my initial questions.

For example this quote from the newly updated Comments
Policy at the link posted below.

"That means they may be reproduced elsewhere for
noncommercial purposes with attribution, and as an
explanatory note, when it says noncommercial, I mean
that I don't want you using my work for any commercial
purpose, including trying to affect the stock price
for your benefit."  -- GrokLaw Comments Policy

Now the question that comes to mind is that if GrokLaw
posts an article that affects the stock price, are we
saying that a tiny unknown site that exists soley to
let search engine bots be able to index PJ's CCL-ed
articles is going to magnify that effect?  Especially
when currently the latest article is from 12/31/2004?

Since is there is only one person we know mirroring
the articles and he happens to have a short interest
in SCO stock (very carefully disclaimed on his
website) doesn't this whole comment seem to be
directed at that one person?  A previous mirror of the
CCL-ed articles was shut down suddenly with little
explanation.

By the way the mirror site is http://gl.scofacts.org/

http://SCOFacts.org being the creation of Al Petrofsky
longtime home of SCO related legal documents and
somtimes used source for documents and transcripts on
GrokLaw.

All anyone wants to see is those that use the CCL and
say they support the ideas of the F/OSS community play
by those same rules.


--- Bob Roberts <droneckx AT yahoo.com> wrote:

> The site in question is Groklaw. 
>  
> The part these people think will apply to their
> friend's mirror is:
>  
> "I will also remove misleading or incorrect
> statements or links thereto made by persons having
> an interest in the stock price of any company
> involved in any of the cases we cover on Groklaw,
> and no permission is granted to any such persons to
> reproduce the content of Groklaw."
>  
> This is found under the Comment Guidelines on
> Groklaw at
>
http://www.groklaw.net/staticpages/index.php?page=2004030120301285
>  
> The guy with the mirror is one of a band of
> extremely vocal anti Groklaw people. They think that
> PJ added this to the Comments Guidelines to shut him
> down (because he has some SCOX stock), yet she has
> not contacted him. That is why they are asking
> questions. For more insight into their little
> campaign, see the CKX board at Y! finance, where
> they have been discussing what questions to pose
> here.
>  
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
> protection around 
> http://mail.yahoo.com >
_______________________________________________
> cc-licenses mailing list
> cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
>
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com