Parker <[email protected]> writes: >I do! It's a nice, /positive/ way to show your support for free >culture to your professor and anyone else looking at your papers. I >emphasize "positive" because I think that we and other activists often >talk about things that we don't like and things that should change >(which makes sense--lots of things should change!). It's always >refreshing (and maybe less off-putting to an uninformed audience) to >make a positive statement.
This is a great idea! One thought: instead of simply an exhortation to use a "Creative Commons license", be explicit about using a free license (i.e., CC-BY or CC-BY-SA). It's *amazing* how often people say their stuff is "CC licensed" but don't know which license they used -- and very often it's an NC or ND license, hence non-free. Or they are aware they used an NC or ND license, but say they licensed their work as "open source". My rough impression (shared by colleagues here at QCO) is that this tendency to blend all CC licenses together is by far the common case. I love Creative Commons, and the way they solved the everyone-writing-their-own-license problem has been terrific. However, perhaps inevitably there's now a branding problem: "CC" has become the brand, even though the licenses are very different, and some are quite non-free. I try to use formulations like "freely licensed", naming the exact CC license, etc, in order to avoid the blurring. Just my $0.02. It's a great idea either way, -Karl _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss FAQ: http://wiki.freeculture.org/Fc-discuss
