« Give.This.Man.A.Pulitzer. | Main | Kernel O'Truth »

December 20, 2009


Chris Byrne

Actually RD, you're thinking about this backwards.

Everything you write publicly is ALREADY covered by a more RESTRICTIVE license, general copyright; whether you explicitly state so or not.

Creative commons is just an easy way to say "I'm not going to enforce all my rights under copyright".


John, what gravels my ass is that ANYONE would try to establish rules of property for something normally given away, namely free advice.

Sure, no one is suing anyone at the moment, but the whole purpose of establishing property rights for unsolicited opinions is to put such conflict into the realm of possibility, no?

I have zero quarrel with protecting ideas that are intended to be value-producing or value-enhancing, but if I say Nancy Pelosi is an ass, why should I claim that gem as a property? Such opinion should not be protectable under any set of rules. To protect ordinary opinion or punditry cheapens and demeans actual, valuable intellectual property.

Just MHO, of course, and under my doctrine, not worth a sou.


The license in question is a lot more along the lines of "give me credit for what I did if you re-print it, and don't try to make money off my work without asking me first." Do either of those things really gravel your ass that much?

The comments to this entry are closed.


Blog powered by Typepad