However, I must admit that I'm a bit surprised at the vote right now.  As I write this there are seven votes.

1 for CCL attribution only.  That means that you are saying that anyone using your words has to give you credit, but that anyone can do anything they want with it.  They can sell it.  They can release it under a different license.  Anything.  Think of BSD.

3 for CCL non-commercial attribution.  This is the same as PJ's articles on GrokLaw.  But, I have to say that I'm a bit surprised at those votes.  I can understand the non-commercial, but by not including the share-alike clause, you are allow it to be relicensed as long as it contains the non-commercial and attribution clauses.  I'd think that if you are going for the non-commercial restriction that you would also go for the share-alike restriction.

There are 3 votes for the CCL attribution share-alike choice.  The distinction between this and the above is that it allows commercial exploitation, but it also requires that any use or derivative be licensed under the same terms.

Within the CCL there are 3 different binary choices:

attribution vs. no attribution

commercial allowed vs. no commercial usage

share alike vs. relicensing ok

no attribution, commercial usage, relicensing ok is basically public domain.

You could think of attribution, commercial, relicensing ok as BSD.  

You could think of attribution, commercial, share-alike as the GPL.

Everyone seems to want atribution.

My guess, despite the votes, is that most everyone wants a share-alike license, even though PJ does not use that on GrokLaw.  I guess, I just don't see the controversy on the requiring that any derived work re-license under the same terms.

It seems that the real question is the commercial vs. non-commercial.  My choice is the commercial, perhaps out of the similarity it creates with the GPL.  Note to for Open Source purists, if it does not have a commercial provision in it then it will not qualify as an open license as far as the OSI is concerned.

I can understand the Colonel's desire to be paid for his work.  However, I suspect that if he or anyone else actually does create something that a big commercial site really wants to use, he will likely get paid even if the site is licensed as commercial, attribution, share-alike.  The reason I suspect that is because of the share-alike provision.  The traditional commercial entities would likely be more comfortable re-licensing the work on more traditional grounds.

Now, I could be wrong on the above.