Get creative
Lawrence Lessig: creative reuse of creative content is what
CC is all about It appears that these licenses
were designed in according to the Jon Udell's philosophy:
Expect, and encourage, unintended use.
Hey Shelley, how's the Humano-Tech Weblogger Conference going?
I don't ask that out of being spiteful or mean. The people who are involved in the CC seem to be a very motivated set of people. Heck, they've even taken their case before the US Supreme Court.
They also seem to be very much aware of the fact that they do not have the answers to all of the worlds problems. Nor do they have the resources to tackle every worthwhile cause.
So they tackle the problems that they can.
If you ask them about about software licenses, you get an answer "not today". You ask them tough questions about RSS, you get an answer that rought equates to "sounds like a good idea". Meanwhile their energies are focused on more Mickey Mouse issues. However, if you want to join them, I'm sure they could use the help.
Or you can continue to throw stones.
Meanwhile I have a lot of respect for people like Matt
Posted by Sam Ruby at
Sam you win. If I disagree, I'm throwing stones. I have no credibility unless I subsume my opinion to yours, or Dave's, or Aaron's.
Stop energy. Since when did have to buy one's way into this discussion by only flowing with the stream, or by putting out applications online, or by scratching code on the back of a napkin. Since when does one have to include opinion within angle brackets to be heard?
As for the conference, I have no part in this. This is your conference now. Your's, Dave's, and others. It is no longer mine.
Posted by Burningbird at
Bombs away!
Pessimists see the world from its dark side -- always the glass half empty. They never see that the world can be made better, that problems can be solved. They are not constructive, though they aren't destructive. Idealists, on ... [more]Trackback from Burningbird at
Debate continues
Instead of writing a new post, I updated the Bombs away posting to reflect new view, opinions, what have you. I also gave my opinion of the "Coders Only Club" (COC), this tendency on some of the elite technologist ... [more]Trackback from Burningbird at
I think the link in the commented-upon posting meant to say:
http://www.infoworld.com/articles/op/xml/02/12/19/021219opwebserv.xml
Regarding the license, I again thank Shelley for raising what I think are important questions. I'm still unsure about my use of that license. The whole project is an experiment, and it became part of the experiment. I will say, though, that my 5 lines of JavaScript (which became 3 lines today, when I took another look at) is not much of a test case for CC w/respect to software. I'm mainly an idea person, a writer, and a scripter, not a professional developer. Even if CC is right for my project, I would not presume to advocate it in place of established licenses for more conventional kinds of software projects.
If others would, though, I'd be interested to read those arguments.
PS: I'm stumped on the sleeping lion riddle.
Posted by Jon Udell at
Common Law
The text within this weblog posting is licensed under a Creative Commons License. --> Denise Howell is our first non-CC lawyer taking a walk on the Creative Commons wild side -- she licensed her weblog. I liked Denise's write-... [more]Trackback from Burningbird at
I added to my original post on this.
This was poor decision making. Why would one use an untested, untried license that is admittedly not designed for the software industry, in place of licenses that are designed for the industry and have been used successfully for many years?
Why would anyone encourage anyone to do so, creating massive amounts of confusion and conflict?
This post of Lessig's and his alteration of it based on your encouragement has, in my opinion, lowered the credibility of the Creative Commons and its products.
Posted by Burningbird at