Development of Creative Commons licenses

[rob AT robmyers.org]

Quoting Terry Hancock <hancock AT anansispaceworks.com>:
> wiki_tomos AT inter7.jp wrote:
> >  The last line of that section is the link to the NonCommercial
> >  Guidelines in pdf.
>
> And that, my friends, is my personal definition of "buried".
>
> *Opposite*, for all intents and purposes, from "published".
>
> Raising the question: "Why?"

The draft guidelines are very good. They were published on this list for
discussion prior to being finalised and made fully public. People then went
crazy over ridiculous use-cases they felt the guidelines didn't cover. Which
seems to have slowed things down a bit.

I'm worried about CC asking for community input on NC. ( Particularly as they
aren't asking how they should get rid of it. ;-) ) The community seems neatly
split over whether NC means "you cannot charge for the use of NC content" or
"you cannot be a commercial organisation and use NC content". CC are going to
have to upset someone at some point over NC. That someone may have to be MIT.

I'm also worried that the temptation to produce an "Educational" license to
avoid this problem will increase. An Educational license would be really bad,
as it would ghettoise academics and students who might otherwise have 
something
to say to (or things to benefit from) the rest of society.

- Rob.