[cc-community] Switching my book to a CC licence?
drew Roberts
zotz at 100jamz.com
Sun Dec 2 12:57:13 EST 2007
On Sunday 02 December 2007 12:04:20 robert at atwood.org.uk wrote:
> For my 2p .. I disagree with Evan :
> >On Sat, 2007-12-01 at 10:07 -0500, Greg London wrote:
> >> The CC-NC license would allow someone to charge for
> >> a copy of the work as long as it wasn't primarily a
> >> for profit transaction.
>
> Greg suggests that it's ok to chare if in isn't "PRIMARILY" for profit.
>
> >The licenses say,
> >
> > You may not exercise any of the rights granted to You in Section
> > 3 above in any manner that is primarily intended for or directed
> > toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation.
>
> Again the word "PRIMARILY" appears in the critical phrase. The difference
> is only that Greg has interpreted 'commercail advantage or private monetary
> compensation' as the slightly fuzzier phrase 'for profit' But I would say
> the key point is "PRIMARILY", which modifies the phrase in either case.
>
> >The draft NC guidelines say:
> >
> > Is there any money changing hands [...] ? [...] license
> > violation – this is not a noncommercial use.
> >
> >As far as I can tell, the statement you make above is false.
> >
> >-Evan
>
> Here, the guidelines appear to have ignored the key concept "PRIMARILY".
> What are the ellipses concealing here? In my quick reading of the
> guideline, which is presented in the form of a decision tree, you cannot
> get to this question without already making some decisions which may allow
> money to change hands while not violating the license, at first glance some
> of the provisions of question A may allow the kind of use that the original
> poster has in mind without violation. If a college copying service sells
> the copies for the same per-page charge as for the student's own material,
> I believe that would not be a violation accordign to guideline A --
>
> As far as I can tell, the out-of-context excertp Evan makes from the
> guidelines is misleading.
>
> I remain deeply suspicious of the NC license clause for reasons supported
> by the existance of this discussion! I mean, woudl guidline A allow a State
> College to use the book, but not Harvard? Or is it the student (individual)
> who directs the copy facility to make the copy, retroactively? AArgh. I'm
> glad I am not a lawyer.
There is even more to it:
See MIT's take on NC here:
http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/web/terms/terms/index.htm#noncomm
They allow use by corporations (for profit enterprises) under certain
conditions where the guidelines don't the last time I checked. See their
point 2.
They allow recovery of costs whereas, iirc, the guidelines don't. See their
point 3.
So, when using the MIT stuff, you can do some things that you cannot when
using stuff where the creators subscribe to the guidelines.
Now, the fun can really start when you mix some of each together... Especially
if there is an SA floating around with the NC...
all the best,
drew
More information about the cc-community
mailing list