Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

>> Quoting Adam Fields <cc-licenses345982 AT aquick.org>:
>> > Is this contrary to the spirit of creative commons?

No, that is exactly what Creative Commons set out to enable.

>>quoting drew:
> I think that the problem may arise from the name itself.
> "Creative Commons" ... They do not in fact have
> "a common pool to draw on" in creating new works in
> keeping with their ideals.

I was never thrilled over the name "Creative Commons"
because not all CC licenses have anything to do with
what we think of as a commons: a shared pasture or
any sort of Public Domain.

I would have rather seen them use a name such as
"Creative Copyright" or "Some Rights Reserved" or
something that didn't invoke the image of a shared
public domain work. But a name is a minor quibble.
I still support the idea behind CC. And at least
some of their licenses do in fact support a commons,
it's just left to the people to decide whether they'll
use them.



>
> Of course, I may be missing the mark completely with this thought.
>>
>> - Rob.
>
> all the best,
>
> drew
> --
> http://www.ourmedia.org/node/145261
> Record a song and you might win $1,000.00
> http://www.ourmedia.org/user/17145
> _______________________________________________
> cc-licenses mailing list
> cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses
>


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