[Wikipedia-l] Re: Proposal: commons.wikimedia.org

[Michael Snow]

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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20040320/422d2a32/attachment.htm