Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

Mia,

If it's a pissing contest you want, then fine.

You posted to a blog entry here
http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/5752

it doesn't contain a link directly to the guidelines.
It contains a bunch of links, a number of which
which were ambiguous enough that they COULD have
been links to the actual guidelines, but turns out
none of them are.

At the very bottom, there is a link that points
to a post you made to the email list.
Not the guidelines themselves, but a post about
the guidelines.

And THAT post contains half a dozen links as well,
a number of which are equally  ambiguous that they
could have been the guidelines, but weren't.

Finally, at the bottom of that post is a link to
an attachment to the post you made to the mailing list.

I'm so sorry you haven't gotten the overwhelming response
you were hoping for these guidelines. But the lack of
response may very well have had something to do with
the fact that YOU buried the guidelines.

Don't piss on my parade because I point out just how hard
it is to find your guidelines and because I point out that
maybe that has something to do with the fact that you only
got two responses.

Golly gee, Mia, your weblog pointing to a post that contains
an attachment of the guidelines seems to have escaped the
attention of, hm, EVERYBODY? And you wanna get in my face
because I point out just how difficult it is to find them?

Sure, fine. It's MY fault that no one's seen your proposed
guidelines.

Whatever.

Now I'm considerably consternated...
Greg London

> dear greg,
>
> i am sorry you were not able to find the guidelines linked to the
> text in that blog post which said: "these guidelines have been posted
> here." i am also sorry that these guidelines escaped your attention
> when i sent an email to this same list entitled "Discussion Draft -
> NonCommercial Guidelines."
>
> here (again) are the guidelines.
>
>
> because they are a discussion draft, it is not appropriate to post
> them more prominently on the CC website.
>
> rgds, mia
>
> On Mar 6, 2006, at 2:15 PM, Greg London wrote:
>
>> Mia,
>>
>> You refer to
>> http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/5752
>> but that doesn't contain any guidelines.
>>
>> That weblog entry contains links to:
>>
>> A post by you in April 2005 saying NC meant NotForProfit,
>> that money could exchange hands
>> https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/cc-education/2005-April/000278.html
>>
>> A post by me in response to your "NotForProfit" explanation
>> that you label as "considerable consternation"
>> https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/cc-licenses/2005-April/002160.html
>>
>> A link to a "non commercial use case" which explains how
>> one website (Schmap) uses the NonComemrcial license.
>> http://wiki.creativecommons.org/NonCommercial_use_cases
>>
>> A link to your international affiliates:
>> http://creativecommons.org/worldwide/
>>
>> A link to Laura Lynch's entry on CC's "About" page:
>> http://creativecommons.org/about/people#19
>>
>> A link to a post by Bruno Nessuno on the CC-License mailing
>> list asking about how to use NC in Jan 2006
>> https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/cc-licenses/2006-January/
>> 003104.html
>>
>> A link to a post by you on the CC-License mailing list
>> talking that looks quite a bit like weblog/entry/5752
>>
>> A link to join the CC-License page
>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses
>>
>> None of the links in the weblog entry 5752 are actually the
>> Proposed NonCommercial Guidelines. I had to go through them
>> twice before I figured out that they were contained in a
>> link in your Jan 2006 post to CC-Licenses. At the bottom,
>> after half a dozen other URL's.
>>
>> For those who are still with me, the guidelines are posted
>>
>> https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/cc-licenses/attachments/
>> 20060110/02d7a271/NonCommercialGuidelinesclean-0001.pdf
>>
>> Which is a very long and unruly URL to be passing around.
>> And as far as I can tell, the only access to it is via
>> the CC-License archives, which isn't exactly a cake-walk
>> to wander through when you're looking for an old post.
>> Believe me, I've waded through the archives on a rare and
>> painful occaision.
>>
>> If you would like to enable a discussion about these guidelines,
>> may I recommend creating a short page that has at the very top
>> some title such as Non Commercial Guidlines and a link to the PDF?
>>
>> Then in the middle, put an explanation as to the background
>> and why these guidelines were created. Use as few links as
>> possible. Links to mailing list archives should be dropped.
>>
>> Have a paragraph that explains what exactly you're looking
>> for (feedback? changes? requests for changes? complaints?
>> concerns?) and how you would like to recieve that feedback
>> (I assume the CC-License list?)
>>
>> And then have at the very bottom, a link to the PDF in
>> big bold letters that says "Read the guidelines here".
>>
>> Then, on the front page of http://www.creativecommons.org
>> one of your webheads needs to add a link that says something
>> like "NonCommercial Guidelines here".
>>
>> The page must be accessible easily from the top.
>> If you want this discussed by lots of poeple,
>> make sure anyone who comes to CC's main website
>> can find it. Make it so that anyone who is discussing
>> these guidelines can find them without going into the
>> mailing list archives. Generally, when I'm discussing
>> some license on the mailing list, I go to Creative Commons
>> main page, then surf down to the license text. THen I only
>> have to remember http://www.creativecommons.org, I don't
>> have to bookmark anything, and I don't have to keep old
>> emails around in my inbox.
>>
>> It should also have a nice URL such as
>> http://www.creativecommons.org/noncommercial_guidelines.pdf
>> so that those who want to really go through it with a fine
>> tooth comb can bookmark it and pass it around in an email
>> to their friends without the line wrapping function
>> cutting the URL in half, or thirds.
>>
>> Greg "considerable consternation" London
>>
>>
>>
>>> so people criticising CC for a vague definition of NonCommercial is
>>> wearing a little thin with me. for 9 months we worked on some
>>> guidelines to try to encapsulate what the different communities
>>> understood "NonCommercial" to mean....a discussion draft of the
>>> guidelines was posted on January 10, 2006; see: http://
>>> creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/5752.
>>>
>>> so far there have been 2 comments on these.  if you think the
>>> definition is too vague & CC should do something to clarify it -
>>> let's discuss these guidelines!!!
>>>
>>> thanks,
>>>
>>> mia
>>> http://creativecommons.org/about/people#36
>>>
>>> On Mar 6, 2006, at 7:39 AM, rob AT robmyers.org wrote:
>>>
>>>> "At MashupCamp the other day, I addressed a couple of my concerns
>>>> about Creative
>>>> Commons to Larry Lessig."
>>>>
>>>> http://www.sourcelabs.com/blogs/ajb/2006/02/
>>>> creative_commons_is_broken.html
>>>>
>>>> Via Rumori.
>>>>
>>>> - Rob.
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> cc-licenses mailing list
>>>> cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
>>>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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/
>> _______________________________________________
>> cc-licenses mailing list
>> cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/