Before returning to write (or more likely just quote at length) about subjects I have little to no knowledge of, and therefore little to no credibility, I want to note that as attention to it has finally receded, I've licensed my article on the Creative Commons and BzzAgent under a Creative Commons Attribution license. That means that you don't have to contact me or get my permission to republish and/or translate the article elsewhere, as long as you credit me as the author. A prominent—which is to say obvious to the reader—link back to the original article will suffice.
Two reasons for that. First, while I'm still waiting for an official response from the Creative Commons organization, I'd like to signal with action that I still view the organization and its ideas positively. (That article and that article alone, for now, is licensed as such.) Second, it's an experiment in resentment: I'd love to see how I react if people use my article for commercial purposes, which I've allowed, or in a publication that I disagree with, which I've also allowed.
I'm seeking elaboration, corroboration or refutation on a point made in the comments to the article that the Creative Commons is "just" branding copyright as it currently exists. Also, for a nuanced perspective on Creative Commons, be sure to read Bob Wyman's request for legal interpretations of whether Creative Commons induces patent violations in software practices.
Uncharacteristically, at least for 2005, I have not enabled comments on this entry. If so inclined please comment at the bottom of the article itself.
