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. MZMcBride _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimediafirstname.lastname@example.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>