Development of Creative Commons licenses

["Patrick Peiffer" <peiffer.patrick AT gmail.com>]

Dear all,

A suggestion Drew: How about a "cc-add-your-name-here" list?
You could invite all those you enjoy thinking aloud and on-list with
(I'm sure you know who they are), and all'd be fine and dandy?

My apologies if this sounds rude, but see the thread on "Procedural
suggestion" from october last year. Then the situation was actually
serious, a short and too the point question by Mia was drowned by
off-topic noise, by among others, yourself. Today it's the same with
that "NC considered harmful" thread, except that serious dicussion has
left the list a long time ago.

While I don't expect this will lead anywhere, a trace has been left
for list-newbies who wonder what the hell is going on on this
cc-licences list...

Cheers, Patrick




On 23/03/07, drew Roberts <zotz AT 100jamz.com> wrote:
> On Thursday 22 March 2007 10:15 pm, Luis Villa wrote:
> > This thread (rather, this complete rehash of things which have been
> > discussed over and over again) is getting terribly repetitive and
> > dull. Can it end? Nothing that has been said since very early in the
> > thread has been new for some years now.
> >
> > Better yet, can there be a cc-licenses-offtopic or something similar
> > that such discussions can preemptively be shunted to when they get
> > repetitive, or of interest only to a few? I find that generally the
> > signal-to-noise ratio on this list is quite bad, and I have a very
> > high tolerance for such things. Maybe a cc-licenses-ot, or just a
> > general policy of actively encouraging such discussions to move
> > off-list, would help that.
>
> I think this is an excellent idea. I don't know what to call them. One to
> discuss CC licenses in a general way, and one for discussing them for
> improvements during the "next version" process.
>
> Would that be the correct two breakdowns?
>
> See: http://creativecommons.org/discuss
>
> We see community and licenses general. Of the choices, these sorts of
> discussions seem to fit more in the latter.
> >
> > Luis
> >
> > On 3/22/07, Javier Candeira <javier AT candeira.com> wrote:
> > > Kevin Phillips (home) wrote:
> > > >> Writers do not really have such alternatives, as a body
> > > >> of text is a body of text is body of test...
> > > >
> > > > Audio books are a good possibility, or other alternative ways to
> > > > deliver the "text".
> > >
> > > And as anyone can make an audiobook off a by-nc-sa novel, the only
> > > difference with by-sa is that -nc only allows the novelist to sell the
> > > audiobook.
> > >
> > > >> Once you've read
> > > >> something, you've read it; if it is very good, you might wish to read
> > > >> it again, but are unlikely to wish to read it every day or hang it on
> > > >> your wall.
> > > >> S.M.
> > > >
> > > > ok. So you need to come to my house and explain to my fiancee why she
> > > > doesn't actually need to buy all of Cory Doctorow's books because he
> > > > has them online for free download.  :)   She loves books, likes to
> > > > carry them around and read them on trains, swap them with friends.
> > > > She's an active bookmoocher and doesn't seem to be so unique in this
> > > > regard.
> > >
> > > Market for novelists is a bit bigger when you not only consider the
> > > nutters.
> > >
> > > > It's apparently also essential to have more than one version of a book,
> > > > especially limited edition shiny covered highly-stroke'able expensive
> > > > ones!
> > > >
> > > > :)  ...prefereably signed...
> > >
> > > Of course. And even translations into languages you don't understand.
> > > It's the covers, you know? Still, we nutters ('us nutters'?) are a
> > > limited market. Most readers pick up whatever cheap paperback edition.
> > >
> > > -- j
>
> all the best,
>
> drew
> --
> (da idea man)
> _______________________________________________
> cc-licenses mailing list
> cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses