On 6/3/07, Peter Halasz <email(a)pengo.org> wrote:
I invited Creative Commons staff member Mike
Linksvayer to weigh in on
the discussion of CC-3.0, and he's left comments. The conversation has
again gone stale since then: [[Commons talk:Licensing/Creative Commons
3.0]]. When are we going to move towards allowing CC-3.0 licenses, and
who makes the decision? Are we just going to ignore it while there are
lingering doubts? For people who want to allow Wikipedia to use their
material, it's enough trouble to explain that they have to use BY or
BY-SA licenses, and not the others listed on
creativecommons.org. But
it's just going too far having to say "you need to hunt down an
outdated creative commons license... one which isn't even listed at
creativecommons.org". The 3.0 licenses create no new conditions which
don't already exist in law. Let's take them on already. [those are my
thoughts, not CC's] Pengo 05:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
The shift from enforcing things through moral right to enforcing them
through copyright it itself significant.
I think the real important question is "who
makes the decision?"
But yes, it seems to me that the don't accept them camp can always win
by stalling. Meanwhile, more and more free content appears on the web
under CC-3.0 that we can't use. --Selket 06:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Flickr still uses 2.5. deviant art appears to do the same. I see no
reason to give in as yet. CC screwed up. That isn't our problem.
--
geni