Michael-
Nor is it in any danger of that. Whether we use it or
not, "commons"
will always have plenty of other meanings and uses. But it's worth
noting that if you Google the word, the Creative Commons site is the
first hit.
Sure, because the Wikimedia Commons site does not exist yet.
> It is much more desirable for the image of a
commons
> in the digital age to be firmly etched into the mind of the Internet
> public as one of a set of content which may be freely used with limited or
> no restrictions.
I would think that the choice of name should serve the
agenda of
promoting the project, instead of having the project serve the agenda of
promoting the name.
In this case, it will serve both.
Regards,
Erik