Development of Creative Commons licenses

["Emerson Clarke" <emerson.clarke AT gmail.com>]

> CC offers standardized licenses for a range of permissions.  The brands
> that matter for free and open software are brands created by
> organizations devoted to copyleft principles.  CC doesn't claim that all
> of its licenses meet those principles.  CC doesn't use "Free Culture" to
> describe itself or its licenses.
>
> > I suggest focusing on how you can make money instead of focusing on
> > preventing others from gaining commercially.
>
> Hear hear!

Thats just semantics, one way of making money is licensing the
software to commercial users.  I dont see anything wrong with this...

I dont want to prevent commercial use, i just want to force that a
licensing fee is paid in such circumstances.  Commercial organisations
should not have an issue with this, especially if the license is very
reasonable.

I don't think that in principle this makes the software any less free
than the GPL.  As i said earlier, the only reason the GPL doesnt claim
license fees is becuase traditionally the attribution of such fees
would be difficult.  In all other areas the GPL strives to create an
ecosystem where free software developers and commercial software
developers are separated.

I believe im more in the BSD style camp of open source licenses, where
if something is free, it should be truly free.  Except that i want
people who make money from it to give me some of that money, as is
only fair.

Emerson