Kat Walsh wrote:
>I guess I am in as good a place as any to try to answer this question
>(and I'm speaking only for myself, here).
>So the organization and the licenses are tied together in that someone
>needs to be the license steward, but not necessarily the organization
>in its current form. (The real requirement is that the license steward
>have the trust of the license-using community, so that people will
>still use the CC licenses as stewarded by whoever does it. It is
>possible to have competing forks of the licenses and this is a bad
>idea for the same reason forks of many types of standards with network
>effects are a bad idea.) CC currently has seen better times--in an
>attempt to make its financial situation sustainable many staff were
>recently let go, which is why I am no longer there. But it is not yet
>down to bare bones, and I think there is a much greater likelihood
>that support would continue to exist for that bare bones work (and if
>I'm putting my speculative hat on, paths for such support could
>include getting taken under the wing of a law school, for example).
>tl;dr: CC has its struggles but this is not something I currently see
>as a major concern.

Thank you very much for taking the time to put together this thoughtful
and candid reply. I really appreciate it, particularly given your unique
expertise and experience in this area.


Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Reply via email to