Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Gregor Hagedorn <g.m.hagedorn AT gmail.com>]

I do realize a key aspect of Gregor's proposal is that expiry be built
in [...] Maybe such should've
been built into CC licenses from the beginning, but I'm less sure
about the case for adding it now without a clear demonstration of
demand and theory as to why it would be a net benefit. I'd love to be
convinced (hopefully an indicator that others would be too).

I think CC is shaping realities with the license chooser. Few people ever look at more. In fact, the CC website has no other good overview...

(Related: the founders copyright is not a good argument, in part because it was never in the license chooser. I also personally view the name as US-legal profession insider knowledge - I think normal people would identify "founders" with the founders of Creative Commons and wonder why they have a special copyright-licensing mode...)

However, the essence of my proposal is the thought of how to make the standard closed-content NC licenses in the CC 3.0 suite less dangerous. They are by far the most frequently used licenses. One could say, that CC is promoting closed content. So, my thinking is about phasing out CC BY-NC, CC BY-NC-SA, CC BY-NC-ND, to be _replaced_ by CC BY-NC(exp2013)-SA, ... CC BY-NC(exp2036)-SA  alone.

This would limit the duration of closed content promoted by CC, It would also contribute to the understanding that NC is not so desirable (many people I had interviewed believe NC is MORE desirable than without, some assuming "Wikipedia is using it of course"...) -- if the NC license is deemed to require time limitation, it points to a problem.

Gregor