Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Mike Linksvayer <ml AT creativecommons.org>]

On Thu, 2007-02-15 at 14:20 -0500, James Grimmelmann wrote:
> Mike Linksvayer wrote:
> > How can we further encourage licensors to be specific?  Suggestions
> > welcome, but be patient -- it always takes awhile to get buy in from CC,
> > CC affiliates and the greater CC community, which includes a whole lot
> > more than just frequent posters to the cc-licenses list (not that we
> > don't love you all).
> 
> A "tell us which license you chose and why" campaign would be a good 
> meme to spread.

Good idea.  A few times I've noticed people doing that on their own I've
blogged it, though the only one I could find quickly is
http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/4282

I wonder if "write about X and tag 5 other people to do the same" would
work here -- "Tell us which license you chose and why, and tag five net
friends who have used a CC license to do the same."

> The new beta license-elements picker is a great idea, 
> and with some interface tinkering, it ought to be the standard way of 
> picking elements.  People should be thinking of the licenses as built up 
> from standard elements and reflecting on which freedoms they wish to 
> give to licensees.  The traditional multiple-choice interface is 
> reasonable, but not as transparent as it could be.

A new iteration of the beta license picker will be out later in the
month.

> I also wish that the license naming scheme were standardized on 
> "Creative Commons" + Element 1 + Element 2 + . . . where each element is 
> a restriction on use and no restrictions means public domain.

That's exactly the naming scheme for the six mainline licenses, so no
renaming is needed, unless I misunderstand your suggestion.

> The 
> practice of coining new names for old licenses -- "Wiki," "Music 
> Sharing" -- is particularly pernicious and I wish it would stop. 

I agree, to obivously mixed results.  But a new name for an old license
is better than a new niche license.

> A 
> Great Renaming would be disruptive, I know, but it would be worth 
> thinking seriously about what it would take to get there at some point 
> in the future.
> 
> Someday I will help this cause, as well, with a "NonCommercial 
> ShareAlike Considered Harmful" essay, but that will have to wait for 
> more time on my plate.
> 
> In general, the goal is to encourage mindfulness about license elements. 
>   They are important properties that people should think about, not 
> details to be hidden.



-- 
  http://wiki.creativecommons.org/User:Mike_Linksvayer