Now, that’s uncanny. When it rains, I guess, it really pours. And all this while I’m contemplating a move to a different CMS platform (1,2,3).

I’m not sure how I feel about MT’s move to their new pricing structure, but I do think that folks are being a little hard on 6A. Apparently, there’s some controversy over the MT3-beta process and the faithful users who supported it unaware of a looming licensing change. For that sort of behavior, I think, Ben and Mena have some explaining to do. And I’m not even an MT user.

I like Blogger, and I currently use Blogger, which is a more significant endorsement. That’s good enough for now, but I think I’d like to switch to some new system (or a combination of systems) simply because I can. It’s just one of those little habits that keeps me up at night, huddled in front of my monitor. And it’s not that MT is out of the question; in fact, it appears that MT 2.661 is still available - there’s no pressure to upgrade - and there is a large support base for this product.

I must admit, though, I like the idea of a CMS package published under the GPL, but I find myself wondering about copyright flexibility for the content produced by such a package. I’ve also been considering the use of CC licensing, as I’ve been seeing pop up now and then. I’m no zealot, but I can understand the paradox facing disgruntled users of MT: just because it’s open code that doesn’t mean it’s Open Source, and just because it’s Open Source it isn’t necessarily free*.