Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

On Thursday 05 April 2012 19:20:41 Ben Finney wrote:
> Diane Peters <diane AT creativecommons.org>
>
> writes:
> > Thanks for raising this.   As you know, BY-SA is derived from BY-NC-SA
> > Draft 1, but with NC provisions removed and the relevant SA-related
> > provisions added.
>
> That's rather distressing. Why is the non-free NC clause given such
> primacy in the process?
>
> How can we convince you to focus primarily on free-culture licenses,
> like CC-BY and CC-BY-SA, and derive the non-free licenses (if people
> want them) from those free licenses?

+1 (and +lots more really)

NC can always be used to stop uses that SA should stop but is worded too 
weakly too stop.

BY-SA should not simply be BY-NC-SA with the NC bits dropped. (Or anything 
remotely close to that.)

all the best,

drew