[Foundation-l] Decision on Creative Commons 3.0

geni geniice at gmail.com
Sat Jun 2 23:53:31 UTC 2007

On 6/3/07, Peter Halasz <email at pengo.org> wrote:
> I invited Creative Commons staff member Mike Linksvayer to weigh in on
> the discussion of CC-3.0, and he's left comments. The conversation has
> again gone stale since then: [[Commons talk:Licensing/Creative Commons
> 3.0]]. When are we going to move towards allowing CC-3.0 licenses, and
> who makes the decision? Are we just going to ignore it while there are
> lingering doubts? For people who want to allow Wikipedia to use their
> material, it's enough trouble to explain that they have to use BY or
> BY-SA licenses, and not the others listed on creativecommons.org. But
> it's just going too far having to say "you need to hunt down an
> outdated creative commons license... one which isn't even listed at
> creativecommons.org". The 3.0 licenses create no new conditions which
> don't already exist in law. Let's take them on already. [those are my
> thoughts, not CC's] Pengo 05:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The shift from enforcing things through moral right to enforcing them
through copyright it itself significant.

>     I think the real important question is "who makes the decision?"
> But yes, it seems to me that the don't accept them camp can always win
> by stalling. Meanwhile, more and more free content appears on the web
> under CC-3.0 that we can't use. --Selket 06:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Flickr still uses 2.5. deviant art appears to do the same. I see no
reason to give in as yet. CC screwed up. That isn't our problem.


More information about the foundation-l mailing list