Moreover, removing the exclusive license provision retains craigslist’s compatibility with common licensing schemes, like the Creative Commons ShareAlike license or the GNU Free Documentation License.
Hold on a sec here. Are they saying that Craigslist postings are now licensed under CC ShareALike (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/)? If so that's probably the most substantial point in this post.
No, they seem to be saying that a Craigslist poster may, if they choose, license their own post under CC-BY-SA. Why anyone would bother to do that is beyond me.
And I'm not convinced it's true given that the terms of use, last updated in February, still say "You also expressly grant and assign to CL all rights and causes of action to prohibit and enforce against any unauthorized copying, performance, display, distribution, use or exploitation of, or creation of derivative works from, any content that you post (including but not limited to any unauthorized downloading, extraction, harvesting, collection or aggregation of content that you post)." http://www.craigslist.org/about/terms.of.use
Very disappointing post from EFF here. The meaningless Creative Commons bit you quoted is a fine illustration of what toothless nonsense the whole thing is. It seems they have a major conflict of interest with the legal bully's founder (Craig Newmark) sitting on their Advisory Board.
If this is indeed the case then that's absolutely ridiculous. I expected more from the EFF than chummy back-slapping and congratulatory praise for repealing a legally baffling policy.
Hold on a sec here. Are they saying that Craigslist postings are now licensed under CC ShareALike (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/)? If so that's probably the most substantial point in this post.