Development of Creative Commons licenses

[drew Roberts <zotz AT 100jamz.com>]

On Wednesday 20 July 2005 08:05 am, Rob Myers wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 20, 2005, at 12:33PM, drew Roberts <zotz AT 100jamz.com> 
wrote:
> >While I agree wit you thoughts, I think you miss what he meant by match.
> > If I understand correctly, I think he is referring to a sweet-spot type
> > match where the "properties" of software and the "provisions" of the
> > license work together to generate success.
>
> Ah, I see what you mean. Yes, I did misunderstand that. My apologies.
>
> >So, he thinks, that, for instance, while BY-SA
> >may have similar "provisions" to the GPL, text does not have similar
> > enough "properties" to software for the "sweet-spot" match to occur.
> > (Please correct where I have this wrong. Sometimes a third party can spot
> > talking at cross purposes...)
>
> Code is text, though. I don't understand what properties literary or
> academic text is meant to have that makes copyleft inadequate for it.
>
> If we look at Lessig's "Free Culture", for example, the eBooks and
> audio-books were generated because of the license, a noncommercial (hiss!
> :-) ) attributon-only (hiss! :-) ) license. A medium-specific license
> wouldn't have allowed this.

I am not agreeing with his take, just trying to make it clearer so that 
people 
can have a more productive discussion.

I think copyleft is the key to the commons, but even that perhaps does not go 
far enough. Do we need to put even more commons in the commons?
>
> - Rob.

all the best,

drew
-- 
http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=creator%3A%22drew%20Roberts%22