Development of Creative Commons licenses

["S. Massy" <smassy AT sdf.lonestar.org>]

Only my second post on this list, but I had to weigh in on this, as an
NC user.

First, I am the first to agree that a large-scale project made up of a
pleurality of contributors would be hard put to it to survive with a
NC license, as it would rob it of most of its flexibility. However, I
don't see what is wrong or harmful with a single person or a small
project using the NC license to protect their "commercial" interest,
or, in other words, their ability to earn eating money. Of course,
some people have hinted that the NC license fails to do that and that
people using it misunderstand its ramifications: if such is the case,
could someone please explain why? I for one would certainly like to
be better informed.

I like the idea of being able to distribute some of my work for free
and, further more, allowing other people to redistribute it likewise;
I do not, however, like the idea of someone putting it on CDs and
charging 10 quids a piece without even asking for permission. If not
NC, which license should I choose?

On a different note... I noticed that some people have brought up the
GPL in this discussion and it bothers me. The GPL is great at what it
does, which is ensuring the spread and improvement of free software;
however, I do not see how its model could be applied beneficially to
the world of arts and culture, not in most cases anyway. If in doubt,
look at what happened with the FSF's attempt at addressing licensing
issues with documentation and the resulting FDL, and the
controversy it created in the free software community.

Cheers,
S.M.
-- 
smassy AT sdf.lonestar.org
-- 
smassy AT sdf.lonestar.org