Development of Creative Commons licenses

[rob AT robmyers.org]

Quoting Greg London <email AT greglondon.com>:

> "Free to leave or truly commit" is coercion. In game-theory terms,
> you want to perform a strategic maneuvar that would prevent everyone
> else from making a move they *would* like to make, but because of
> your move, they can no longer do so. That is the epitome of coercion.

Possibly I am misunderstanding the scope of the game as usual, but 
surely anyone
who doesn't want to play that game can start a new one, so I'm not sure it is
coercion in game theory terms. For example there are enough 
alternatives to the
GPL that if I do not wish to embrace the ethical wonders of Free 
Software but I
still want to use a copyleft license there are a number of options open to me
(including writing my own license).

That said, the *language* of "or truly commit" *is* coercive.

> What you've been saying is this:
>
> "non-commercial-derivatives should be allowed by any and
> all Creative Commons licenses, even the NoDerivatives license."

This sounds like a kind of formalized Fair Use. Fair Use is a matter of intent
not action, so providing a list or limit of the actions once can take under
fair use, or (as in this case) providing a licence that is an alternative to
Fair Use and could be used to affect it, is not a good idea IMHO.

- Rob.