On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 10:34 PM, Erik Moeller <erik(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
Creative Commons has gone live with a new design for
their two free
content licenses:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
This design identifies the licenses as being compliant with the
Definition for Free Cultural Works (and links to it).
This is fantastic. I'm quite surprised actually, that you were able
to convince them to take such a bold step.
It's always annoyed me, the casualness with which many people use the
highly ambiguous phrase "Creative Commons License". I think it's the
complicated specific names (like
"Attribution-NonCommerical-ShareAlike") that are causing people to
gloss over the differences.
One thing that has occurred to me, is maybe they should consider
color-coding their licenses, like NBC used to due with their different
radio networks in the USA (they had "Red", Blue", "Orange",
"Gold" and
"White" Networks ). This would not be a replacement of the current
names, but rather "nicknames" for colloquial use.
For, example, this is one possible scheme:
Creative Commons Violet (by)
Creative Commons Blue (by-sa)
Creative Commons Green (by-nc)
Creative Commons Yellow (by-nc-sa)
Creative Commons Orange (by-nd)
Creative Commons Red (by-nc-nd)
Pharos