Development of Creative Commons licenses

["Luis Villa" <luis AT tieguy.org>]

On 3/24/07, Terry Hancock <hancock AT anansispaceworks.com> wrote:
> Note in particular that the full name for this list is
> "Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts" -- IOW, not merely
> on the published licenses (what they are) but on their evolution and
> terms (what they should be).
>
> Dull or not, ISTM that's what this list is *for*.

I think perhaps I was not clear on what I was criticizing. The email
with which you started this thread was almost a perfect example of a
good email- you clearly were trying to move the discussion in a new,
interesting, and above all constructive direction. Because of that I
participated in it for several days. Parts of the thread could still
meet the criteria- I think, for example, that you could use the
earlier discussion to push ccmixter to allow SA licenses, for the
purposes of long-term comparison. And your summary email is a pretty
good summary of the state of the arguments against NC.

But I think it is clear that at this point the bulk of the discussion
is merely rehashing the same tiresome arguments about
commercialization that have been going on in copyleft discussion
groups for over a decade now, with no resolution. Having them over and
over again here does no good, and much harm.

So you're right, I should have said 'the recent majority of this
thread is dull and ot, please take them elsewhere', instead of 'all of
this thread.' I think my basic point still stands- no one is served by
rehashing the same tired points over and over again, even if such
'discussion' is technically within the definition of the list. The
list is only worthwhile if we use it to push new, constructive
discussion- which you nobly tried to do by gathering data instead of
just repeating the same unprovable assertions over and over again. I'm
not trying to shut down that part of the discussion, just the parts
that are not constructive by virtue of having no prospect of moving
forward.

Luis