Development of Creative Commons licenses

["Antoine" <antoine AT pitrou.net>]

> In
> other words, the claim is that they are either "do not produce a
> commons" or "produce an ineffective commons". This is mostly based on
> theory, though.
>
> Now I want to prove it. You know, with *evidence*. ;-)

You want (factual) evidence but (rational) proof is enough.

To have an answer to your question you need to define the word "commons".
Then the answer to "does NC produce a commons?" will be obvious.

Then I'll give my answer:
A "commons" is composed of things which can be reused fairly and honestly.
Getting retribution for one's work obviously seems fair and honest. NC
doesn't allow it (I can't get retribution for my derivative of an NC
work), so NC doesn't create a commons.


Note :
The irony is where the word "commons" comes from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commons
The Wikipedia article does not mention any "non-commercial" limitation to
the "number of traditional rights" which could be exercised by the
commoners.

cheers

Antoine.