Don't all charities and non-profits do this? I mean, Cato accepts donations from private individuals and they sell copies of their publications, but they don't do contract work or accept government money. The Catholic church accepts donations and allows you to sponsor various things (such as buying a brick for a new church) but they no longer sell indulgences. Firefox gives its browser away but accepts money from Google for prominent placement in their toolbar.

Non-profits seek funding mechanisms that don't compromise their mission. In CC's case, their mission is to increase the number of creative works that are freely available for re-mixing. Obviously, charging for creative works would not be the best way of promoting that mission. So in true entrepreneurial fashion, they're finding other ways of raising funds. I don't understand why you find this puzzling.

How is charging for works "obviously" not the best way of promoting creative production.

I believe Solveig's point is that the "movement" aspect of CC often over complicates how creators can make money.

If they don't want to compromise their mission, then fine, they're like non-profits as you say. But CC is also involved in for-profit ventures, where making money is important.

I give the CC community credit for creativity though:):) An auction, who would have thought of that...