Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Terry Hancock <hancock AT anansispaceworks.com>]

drew Roberts wrote:
> >> You are assuming that income generation is the driving force
> >> behind the selection of the NC licence. I'm not convinced that
> >> it is.
> >
> > No, I am assuming that a knee-jerk desire to deny income generation
> > for others is the driving force for the selection of NC.
>
>  I think this may indeed be the case.

Yes, and that's worse than mere "selfishness", it's just misanthropy 
(wanting to damage others even if it causes no benefit to you).  It's 
truly disturbing to imagine this is a major motivation for non-profit 
organizations like churches and schools and so on.

I suspect it's really an un-investigated error of thought process, and 
thus a failure of the Creative Commons' choices in marketing the 
module.  I doubt most of those organizations would've used a "Creative 
Commons Attribution - Retained Monopoly" license (maybe that's what it 
should be called, to avoid confusion).

> >> For both educational and religious material, the driving force is
> >> to maximize the distribution, at the lowest cost to the original
> >> author, and the end user. [This gets back to the dual licence:
> >> "All Rights Reserved" for the hard copy, and "NC" for the
> >> e-text.]

I'm not sure who said this, but surely NC is the wrong choice for this 
goal. The work will be much further distributed at NO cost to the 
original author and (due to competition) and at very nearly the marginal 
cost of reproduction for the end user (which for electronic distribution 
is almost nil).  An unrestricted market is the best possible way to 
assure this goal.

Cheers,
Terry

--
Terry Hancock (hancock AT AnansiSpaceworks.com)
Anansi Spaceworks http://www.AnansiSpaceworks.com