Development of Creative Commons licenses

["Greg London" <email AT greglondon.com>]

>> Which is where something like an early release license would
>> *contribute*
>> to a commons by allowing creators to release the work to CC-BY after
>> some
>> number of years.
>
> Why the assumption everywhere that someone
> wanting to put an NC option on their work
> would would prefer to go to BY rather than
> BY-SA after X years?

Because they figure they can make enough money
in X years to justify the work they put into
creating it, and they are committing to their
readers that after X years they will release
the work to CC-BY.

Telling your readers that you are licensing
the work NOW to be CC-NC-something, but also
committing to them NOW that you will release
the work to CC-BY after X years have passed,
is a committment that will get some readers
attentions.

> of the commons after the donation?

First of all, if you are refering to CC-NC-ANYTHING as
being in a "commons", please stop. And if you really
want to argue that CC-NC-ANYTHING is actually *in* a
commons, then whatever you think you're doing with
CC licenses, I don't want to support the mangling
of the language that comes with it.  I don't have
a problem with people selling works All Rights Reserved
if they want to, but I do have a problem with people
mangling the term "commons" to convince themselves or
others that they're doing something they're not.

Second of all, the point is that the author would
use this license to put the work under some more
strict license first, giving them some time to
exclusively sell the work, but then they commit
*ahead of time* that they will release the work
to CC-BY after some number of years, telling their
readers that they don't need the Life-Plus-70 terms
to find sufficient incentive to creaet the work
in the first place.