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