Development of Creative Commons licenses

[rob AT robmyers.org]

Quoting Terry Hancock <hancock AT anansispaceworks.com>:

> We are asking for a prominant sign that says "HERE YOU STEP OFF OF THE
> FREE BANDWAGON".

As Mike has mentioned, non of the self-appointed arbiters of Free have 
said that
any of the CC licenses are Free. If CC were to make their own standard they
would be perfectly justified in declaring NC Free. ;-)

I also don't get the impression that CC are concerned primarily with
Free-As-In-Freedom. They will help you manage your rights. This will make
things less un-free. Which is a net positive even if it is not what some of us
would like.

> This confusion is orders of magnitude greater than any caused by
> OSI/FSF/Debian/Wikipedia/FreedomDefined differences.

This is a good point.

> Understand me carefully: NC usage is an interesting phenomenon in
> itself.

Well here we differ. I think it is actively self-defeating. ;-)

> The real problem, however, is for users.

CC emphasise authors rather than users/consumers/the audience.

There's nothing wrong with pluralism, but cultural license choice is precisely
the wrong place for it. :-)

> Of COURSE NC is the most popular CC license -- it is the most like ARR.

And it gives all the kudos of using a "Creative Commons License" 
without having
to go any further.

> But right now, the CC logo means *nothing*.

It means you have more rights than you would if the work wasn't under a CC
license.

- Rob.