Erik Moeller wrote:

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.

I'm not at all suggesting that we avoid "commons" because it's proprietary.

It is not desirable for the term "commons" to be merely associated with a set of licenses, to become in effect a legalistic term

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.

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.

--Michael Snow