Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Mia Garlick <mia AT creativecommons.org>]

just to respond on alek's point about "significant institutional  
users" of the license - CC does consult various significant  
institutional CC licensors including in this instance, PLoS,  
BioMedCentral, Yahoo! (for Flickr)...this was also flagged in the  
procedure memo that was sent around well before the start of the  
public discussion. given the intensity & high volume of the postings  
on this list, i don't know that it's useful for us to recommend to  
those licensors that they participate in this forum.  fwiw, all have  
come back with a thumbs up on the current proposed amendments.

On Oct 5, 2006, at 1:28 AM, Alek Tarkowski wrote:

> melanie dulong de rosnay wrote:
> > hi all,
> >
> > at CC France we don't need to have this debate closed today and i   
> > agree with Tom that people who don't agree with the amended anti- 
> > TPM  clause should be able to continue to discuss until hopefully  
> > some  kind of consensus or the strong feeling that consensus will  
> > not be  reached now (within a few days/weeks).
> Dear all,
>
> I agree with the previous voices regarding the state of this  
> discussion. My personal feeling is that nothing good comes out of  
> mailing list discussions where people start intensively replying-to- 
> replies-of-replies, commenting each other's every sentence back and  
> forth.
>
> So furthermore I am confused, and Melanie has brought this issue up  
> - by the status of this discussion. I treat it as a 'local'  
> discussion among several persons interested in licensing issues,  
> but with no claims to representation of the "whole community /  
> constituency" - whatever that would be. I therefore do not  
> understand why a consensus is needed? In my opinion all this list  
> is doing is at best providing some advice? food for thought? to Mia  
> who is drafting the license. Similarly, when Paul wrote about  
> "public discussion" recently, I wasn't sure that's the right term,  
> and I think it's important to name things for what they are. I  
> agree that in many ways it is a public discussion - it is open to  
> anyone interested. But at the same time, due to its range and for  
> many probably reasons, I do not feel it is a true "public"  
> discussion - mainly because the number of participants is limited.  
> One thing that makes me curious - why no significant institutional  
> user of our licenses - say a site like Flickr, or the open access  
> community, or netlabels, etc. (other than Debian and MIT, as far as  
> I understand) is present in this discussion. Do they really don't  
> care about the shape of the licenses? Or are they satisfied with  
> the current version? (And does it really matter to us?, I may add...)
>
> Best,
>
> Alek Tarkowski
>
> --
> koordynator / Public Lead
> Creative Commons Polska / Poland
>
> (+48) 889 660 444
> http://creativecommons.pl
> skype:alektarkowski
>
> <alek.tarkowski.vcf>
> _______________________________________________
> cc-licenses mailing list
> cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses