Development of Creative Commons licenses

["Erik Moeller" <erik AT wikimedia.org>]

On 4/2/07, Mike Linksvayer <ml AT creativecommons.org> wrote:
> * Merely putting one of these buttons on one's site does not identify a
> specific license used.  There is no indication on
> http://freedomdefined.org/Logos_and_buttons that one should link to the
> specific license used.

I've clarified it a bit.

> * fd.o links to http://freedomdefined.org/Licenses/CC-BY-2.5 rather than
> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/ which means the page will
> not be recognized by Google or Yahoo! as falling under the intended
> license.

The current link is not optimal. But since we have two links on the
page, we might have the button point to the freedomdefined.org, and
the text link to the CC deed with "rel" license. It is also possible
that we will do away with the idea of having our own license
description pages, especially if CC were to e.g. include the Free
Cultural Works identification on its own description pages.

> Actually, if I were you :-) I'd probably come up with a single set of logos
> that don't mention a specific license for use as above, especially given
> that you've defined some requirements (source) that aren't inherent in
> several of the qualifying licenses or public domain.

The definition neatly distinguishes between free licenses and free
works; the buttons, by virtue of their simplicity, do not. I think
that level of vagueness is acceptable. If someone puts a button on
their page, expecting their work to be "free", and someone contacts
them and points out: "Wait, according to .., you should actually be
doing this / not be doing this", those are the kind of social dynamics
we want to encourage.
--
Peace & Love,
Erik

DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of
the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.

"An old, rigid civilization is reluctantly dying. Something new, open,
free and exciting is waking up." -- Ming the Mechanic