Development of Creative Commons licenses

["White, Phil" <Phil.White AT rjah.nhs.uk>]

Greg,

Firstly, may I thank you for your opinions. I do value them, along with
everybody else's that have taken the time to respond to my emails.

That said, I came to this list looking for methods to solve a problem,
rather than a debate about the motivation behind my actions and to
justify the same. Whilst doing so, I have tried to be as polite as
possible. Perhaps I should apologise for not being as eloquent as I
should be, but then again...

Most of what you have said before I agree with. I have already said that
I tend towards your viewpoint. Your comments on the 'difficulty'
encountered when ensuring that an original author is notified of changes
made is relevant. But your apparent 'fanaticism' towards one license (or
rather, against one) dilutes your argument greatly.

> This would not be considered a Free license.

Funnily enough, I am aware of that fact, thank you. I used the word
'freedom', rather than 'Free'. Incidentally, if you wish to nit-pick
and/or state the obvious, the CC licenses are not devoid of failings;
Gnu.org has something to say on this, and I'm not going to dissent from
their opinion!

> You are talking about a market economy license
> where the license is designed to benefit you
> over everyone else.
> Which means you soak up
> all the contributions from people, have them sign
> copyright over to you, and then when they've made
> the work even better, you have the sole right to sell
> it to MajorCorp and leave your contributers in the dust.

This is the second time you have besmirched my character. I politely
ignored it the first time - I do not do so the second. If you have
mystical insight into my motivations, you would not need to make such a
comment. As you do not, you should not comment unless you know a lot
more than you do.

If you want to crusade for freedoms, perhaps you should consider a more
fundamental 'right/freedom':- that of 'innocent until proven guilty'.
You have spent more time attacking an alleged hidden agenda on my part
to exploit any contributors, rather than looking at the issue itself.

If you look at my email address, you might notice it is not a 'usual'
one. And the documents I refer to WILL end up on an intranet, unless I
take steps to ensure otherwise. What YOU have been advocating
(unintentionally) is that I 'exploit authors' and then put their work on
a private intranet to which they have no access. I'm sorry - I'm not
going to do that. What I want is open access where each author can
follow their work. You have a problem with my methods. But your solution
doesn't solve anything, and creates a lot more problems. Practical
compromise vs. pointless idealism? Talk to me about solutions, not
problems. And loose your poisonous cynicism.

The CC licenses are not, in any way, perfect for every situation. The
fact that a CC is not suitable for mine does not make me evil incarnate
hell bent on stealing other peoples work for my own profit. CC is a
baby, born in 2002. I work with licenses such as the ACM Copyright
Policy
http://www.acm.org/pubs/copyright_policy/
who have had their license for 12 years - that's 3 times longer than CC
has been around. They don't seem to have any trouble - indeed, quite the
reverse. 

> If not, don't kid yourself that CC-ND and having
> contributers assign copyright to you is anything
> resembling Free or Sharing. Or at least, don't
> try to kid me.

Never have I tried to kid you - you should my posts more carefully. And,
respectfully, I am educated well enough to understand the difference
between 'freedom' and 'Freedom', thank you very much.