Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

Evan wrote:
> Thank you for explaining your crackpot theory

You've a right to your opinion.
So does everyone else:

http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2005/04/programmers_as.html
http://trinity.dartmouth.edu/wordpress/index.php?p=25
http://w-uh.com/posts/050507a.html#L5
http://www.boycott-riaa.com/article/print/16663

As for attribution, what do you want me to say, Evan?
That attribution is the only way for a project to succeed?
The facts do not support that assertion.
Linux gets by without it. Wikipedia gets by without it.
I contribute a lot of time, work, and energy to wikipedia
anonymously. I don't need attribution for my contributions,
and neither does anyone else on wikipedia. It's all GNU-GPL.
So, attribution is not a requirement for a successful wiki
project.

I can only assume that you have a personal attachment
to getting attribution for yourself, because I can
see no other reason for you to blow a gasket every time
I suggest that attribution isn't needed.

I'm not forcing you to take attribution away from
your wikitravel project. If you want to manage
attribution for your project, go for it. That's your right.

But if someone comes on the list and asks for advice
on what license to choose for a long-term, multi-contributer
project, I'll tell them CC-Wiki. It's copyleft, so it protects
the project from proprietary competition, but it puts as few
restrictions on the work to make it as free as possible.
And free/libre/open is good in my book.

If you wanna toss a fit every time I do that,
it's your blood pressure, not mine.

Greg

Bounty Hunters: Metaphors for Fair IP laws
http://www.greglondon.com/bountyhunters/