Development of Creative Commons licenses

[drew Roberts <zotz AT 100jamz.com>]

On Wednesday 14 February 2007 11:06 am, rob AT robmyers.org wrote:
> 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. ;-)

This is incorrect and has already been pointed out as such here on the CC 
lists since Mike made his statement.

For instance you can find what the FSF has to say about BY-SA 2.0 here:

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html#OtherLicenses

To quote it:

"Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 2.0 license

This is a copyleft free license meant for artistic works and entertainment 
works. Please don't use it for software or documentation, since it is 
incompatible with the GNU GPL and with the GNU FDL. "

So, the FSF says BY-SA 2.0 is not only free but also copyleft. They also say 
it is incompatible with the GPL and FDL.

So, you would only be correct if you don't consider to be one of hte groups 
you mentioned.
>
> 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.

That may be so, but some of us are asking for just a tiny bit more from them.
>
> > 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.

Which I personally do not care to much about and in fact, the difficulty of 
finding the Free works wastes my time.
>
> - Rob.

all the best,

drew
-- 
(da idea man)