Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Terry Hancock <hancock AT anansispaceworks.com>]

drew Roberts wrote:
>  So, if you did understand me and I am mistaken in that, you woule be
>  saying that the fact that someone can redistribute a work makes it a
>  part of the commons. (Commercially or non-commercially.) If that is
>  what you are saying, I am not sure I buy that. If you are saying
>  that, would you care to discuss it further.

Getting a little excited there, Drew? :-)

No, you have a point. The name commons doesn't really work if the idea 
is that CC is endorsing each license, instead of (as I have always 
understood the organization's goals) offering baby-step licenses so 
exploitation-jumpy authors can slowly acclimate to the idea of 
free-licensing their content.

As for the role of ND in the commons?  It's the spread of ideas, 
specifically, without allowing the modification of the specific 
embodiments of ideas.  I can't edit an ND work, but I can quote from it 
and refute or support it.  I can also present the work alongside my 
comments.

In the end, though, I'm much more concerned about "halfway free" terms 
like NC, than I am with obviously non-free terms like ND. I think the 
problem with the incrementalist approach is that people may, upon 
failing to realize bazaar-like success with NC works, conclude not that 
"NC isn't free enough", but instead that "free culture doesn't work".

I don't fear that with ND, because it's obvious to the producer that 
they can't expect any kind of collaborative or community advantage.

Cheers,
Terry

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