Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

On Monday 05 June 2006 04:10 pm, Nancy Ide wrote:
> On Jun 5, 2006, at 3:29 PM, Ali Baba wrote:
> >     Maybe they just can't use ARR works, so they would like to use CC
> > works instead, but found that the great majority of these are just as
> > unuseable as ARR works.
>
> Correct.
>
> > But then, why not also complain about ARR
> > works? I think the reason is: because in this case there is nobody to
> > complain to.
>
> Correct again, but only in part. See below.
>
> >     Pretty simple, you see. Which doesn't make it rational -- but who
> > said
> > people always act rationally, again? ;-)
>
> I wrote to the cc-licenses group thinking (at the time) that this was
> a group of people who had thought a lot about fair and free use as
> opposed to ARR, knew a lot about copyright laws, were open to
> reasonable uses of electronically published data, and who might
> engage in a (rational) discussion of a license to allow for a kind of
> access that would both protect the authors and enable legitimate
> research use. 

Some of us are here because we want to learn. Many of us have no official 
connections with CC.

> So far, no discussion, rational or otherwise, has ensued. 

That is a bit too provocative and I maintain it is incorrect. Or do you not 
consider opening questions intended to clarify the situation to not warrant 
being called discussion?

Chill a bit and keep trying. It can take a while. I am not sure you have seen 
any official CC responses yet.
>
> Nancy Ide
>
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