Re: Creative Commons 3.0 Public draft -- news and questions
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: Creative Commons 3.0 Public draft -- news and questions
- From: Nathanael Nerode <email@example.com>
- Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2006 11:47:37 -0400
- Message-id: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- References: <email@example.com> <20060820090613.GB18213@mauritius.dodds.net> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <20060822173708.GA16775@mauritius.dodds.net> <email@example.com> <20060824191018.13F82F6568@nail.towers.org.uk> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <20060831103708.04B45F6C83@nail.towers.org.uk> <email@example.com> <20060923114750.7C423F6565@nail.towers.org.uk>
MJ Ray wrote:
> Nathanael Nerode <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>> > http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2006-August/003876.html
>> The main motivation was to prevent license complication,
>> *not* to prohibit parallel distribution.
>> This is emphasized quite clearly in that message.
> If they wanted to "prevent license complication" why didn't they base
> CC3.0 on CC-Scotland's plain and simple English that already allows
> parallel distribution, rather than the CC2.5-generic that IIRC doesn't?
'Cause they're not that bright. ;-) Basing 3.0 on CC-Scotland probably
seemed "too radical" and basing it on CC2.5-generic seemed
more "conservative". People make stupid decisions like that. Most of them
probably never even read CC-Scotland, despite our suggestions.
Nathanael Nerode <email@example.com>
Bush admitted to violating FISA and said he was proud of it.
So why isn't he in prison yet?...