Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Rob Myers <robmyers AT mac.com>]

On 26 Mar 2005, at 20:06, Greg London wrote:

> But my main argument is that if
> a project can succeed without
> attribution per individual contributer,
> then isn't the project better off
> without the extra overhead?

The project is, the contributor isn't. That is; the community is, the 
individual isn't.

Now, remember that I've been against automatic attribution for "gift 
economy" projects at one time or another. My current position revolves 
around the idea of the "social contract" of a given creative community.

What is the social contract of wikis? Why do people submit work to 
wikis? Do they want people to know who they are? Or are they happy to 
be part of the hive mind?

But aside from that, this is a dangerous license. I see a large market 
for it, one that I fear CC hasn't seen, even though its first customer 
(Lessig) is using the license to do exactly what all its potential 
customers want to do (and shame on him!).

This non-attribution license is going to be like crack cocaine for 
every organisation that wants that cool "open" aura without having to 
give anything away. Here, at last, is the "what's mine is mine, what's 
yours is mine" license that big media has wanted for so long. And it's 
under a Creative Commons banner.

I predict that this license  will become a firm favorite. Just not with 
wikis, which are already locked into the GNU FDL.

Bad idea.

Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaad idea.

Seriously bad idea.

- Rob.