Michael-
Well, that image is where Creative Commons got the
idea too, of course.
But why invite confusion,
I don't think the name invites confusion. It would be quite ironic if the
name "commons" became proprietary because "Creative Commons" adopted
it.
It is not desirable for the term "commons" to be merely associated with a
set of licenses, to become in effect a legalistic term, and I think Larry
Lessig would agree. 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.
Regards,
Erik