Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

> What if, instead of an assignment, there was a grant.
> Something like Bruce does over at technocrat.net:

And if my grandmother had wheels, she'd be a wagon.

The public still ends up with a CC-ND work, plus
a number of modifications that they can't even
apply to the work without Phil's permission.
If Phil were to take down his site, all contributers
are screwed.

Really, drew, I don't understand why you're arguing this.
Yeah, Phil, and anyone else who wants to, can craft their
own license, and do whatever they want to do with their
works. The simple fact is that the currently available
licenses have a history of showing that they work,
that they work for protecting a works Freedom, that they
work making sure the work remains Shared, and absolutely
NOTHING Phil has said here indicates that those already
existing licenses wouldn't do the job.

Instead, Phil has decided that he knows better than
two decades worth of projects licensed under FLOSS
licenses. And to call him on it is, apparently, to
insult his character. If Phil wants to maintain the
Freedom of the work and make sure the work remains
Shared, then there are proven licenses to do that:
GNU-GPL or CC-SA.

if he wishes to use CC-ND, and several overlapping
contracts that he crafted himself, it's his right
to do so, and I believe I even explained to him what
he would need to do in one of my first responses on
this thread. But I won't buy into his claims that whatever
he comes up with is better than copyleft or sharealike,
or that his project has anything to do with freedom
or sharing.

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