Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

On Wednesday 07 March 2007 10:25 pm, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> On 3/7/07, Luis Villa <luis AT tieguy.org> wrote:
>
> It's clear to see how the restrictiveness of the GPL can benefit
> authors and the public alike (more freely licensed stuff = good for
> the public commons). I've never seen anyone argue that the
> restrictiveness of NC directly benefits the public, so if you accept
> my argument that NC hardly benefits the author, then it's apparent
> that it's a bad deal and you can reach that conclusion without a piece
> work which you can hold up and say "this wouldn't exist if foo were
> NC"...  (Not that examples don't exist, but I don't want to get into a
> weaselly argument, where it's countered that FOO could exist even with
> an NC license just as long as X,Y,Z improbable but possible events
> happened)

I certainly wouldn't argue that the restrictiveness of NC directly benefits 
the public. And in case someone doesn't remember my posts on NC, I seriously 
dislike it for a number of reasons. However, if we buy the line that art is 
beneficial to society, then NC and even ARR can be said to benefit the 
public. So, in a round about way...

We may be talking two different kinds of benefit on a fundamental level 
though.

all the best,

drew
-- 
(da idea man)