Development of Creative Commons licenses

[rob AT robmyers.org]

Quoting drew Roberts <zotz AT 100jamz.com>:
> On Thursday 08 March 2007 05:09 am, Antoine wrote:
> > 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.
>
> I would be interesting to see someone put together a history of "commons"
> around the world in light of the modern libre and commons "movements"...

When the commons in England were enclosed and commoners more often than not
ended up in towns, allotments were created as a sop. Allotments are implicitly
personal and noncommercial. NC isn't a creative commons, it's an artistic
allotment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allotment_%28gardening%29

The idea that NC allows you more use than you would otherwise have while
protecting the original author's economic interests is one of the more bizarre
counterfactuals of online hipsterism. Fair Use allows commercial use in many
more situations than NC does, apart from the one situation that makes NC
pointless for most media as an economic protection: the right to share 
the work
without restriction on a commercial p2p system.

- Rob.