Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

On Friday 23 March 2007 03:26 am, Patrick Peiffer wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> A suggestion Drew: How about a "cc-add-your-name-here" list?

And that is a helpful suggestion how exactly?

> 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. 

I don't know Patrick, was it meant to be rude? If not, I will not take it 
that 
way. I try my best not to assume rudeness online unless it is made very 
plain.

> 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. 

So, how would the suggestion of two lists from this one hurt? One for license 
wording (technical, what?) and one for license implications, theories, 
whatever? Again, I am not sure of the best wording or even demarcation.

> 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...

Well, here is the thing that perhaps you miss. Some people obviously want to 
talk about these sorts of things. They see, community and licenses. Licenses 
seems the better choice. Further, something you may be unaware of although I 
have mentioned in passing if I recall correctly, the folks at ccMixter will 
send you here to the cc lists to have these discussions if you try and have 
them on the forums there. I speak from first hand knowledge on that.

So what is it? Is CC's official position that such discussions are not 
appropriate on any CC lists or forums? Is there a CC list or forum that I 
don't know about? I don't want to or like to annoy people, but I know of no 
better more appropriate place to discuss these issues.

I am happy to listen to workable advice as opposed to the possibly 
frustration 
induced '"cc-add-your-name-here" list' above.
>
> Cheers, Patrick

all the best,

drew

>
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> cc-licenses mailing list
> cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses

-- 
(da idea man)