[cc-community] What does NC means?

Terry Hancock hancock at anansispaceworks.com
Wed Oct 31 08:48:04 EST 2007


jonathon wrote:
> drew wrote:
> As far as unscrupulous goes, the spirit of the license is smashed to
> smithereens.  The literal wording in the license is strictly adhered
> to.  This is the group that will drive a Saturn One platform through
> the loopholes in the NC clauses.

I apologize for the OT, but I *have* to say this. There is no "Saturn
One". There was a "Saturn IB"="Saturn One Bee" and a "Saturn V"="Saturn
Five". You probably meant the latter as it's a better hyperbole, the
Saturn V being the largest flying vehicle ever successfully launched.

As for the topic...

drew:

"Non-commercial" means "makes no money" to most people, not "makes no
profit". I personally think the latter makes more sense as a license
term, but it's a matter of perspective.

There's a TANSTAAFL aspect to this, of course -- if you didn't receive
any value from a work, then why would you distribute it? Even at the
most abstract, aesthetic level, the work had to represent some *value*
in order to be worth distributing (perhaps only "humanitarian good
feeling" or "corporate image"). Since those things equate to improved
standing in the world and therefore increase your earning potential,
they *do* indirectly contribute to your income.

Increasing traffic to your site, and then -- as a result -- receiving
more advertising income is a tiny, tiny step from that. So the feeling
that people have that they have to recoup advertising income from NC
works is really the root of this problem.

Also, if someone learns something from an educational work, then they
will improve their earning potential. So the "use" of a work may also be
"commercial" even in contexts many of us ("educational users") would
like to see described as "non-commercial".

But, if we try to grasp at every possible way that somebody can make
indirect money from a work -- well, that way lies madness.

The whole idea is ill-conceived.

However, if CC wants to continue with the NC licensing concept, then it
REALLY needs to come up with a specific definition for what NC means --
or more importantly, what it DOES NOT MEAN.

And it needs to make that definition public and evident to everyone who
uses the licenses, as licensor or licensee.

And unfortunately, that's going to mean making somebody angry! Because I
guarantee you that no matter where you draw that line, somebody is going
to be standing on the wrong side of it. But that's a product of how
muddled things are due to the vagueness of the license -- IOW it's
"damage already done" by the unwillingness of CC to take a stand.

Cheers,
Terry


-- 
Terry Hancock (hancock at AnansiSpaceworks.com)
Anansi Spaceworks http://www.AnansiSpaceworks.com



More information about the cc-community mailing list