[cc-community] What does NC means?
jonathon
jonathon.blake at gmail.com
Sun Sep 16 00:46:49 EDT 2007
Enrique wrote:
> Nothing in the hymnal is PD. Actually, everything is new.
The document needs to clearly state that:
* Everything is under copyright;
* The composers etc have specifically granted the right to distribute
this material under the CC license.
> The validation is a verification that the hymns had liturgical value.
Ah. That makes sense.
It also explains why you don't want words to be changed.
> The hymnal is as simple as it get: Only lyrics, main melody of the
> lyrics and suggested chords.
What happens when:
# somebody wants to distribute the hymnal as a resource for a Bible
study program:
* Ogg file;
* mp3 file;
* midi file;
* Shape note music PDF/PNG;
* Braille Music notation PDF and/or DDF. (DDF is a common Braille file format.)
* Text file/HTMl/whatever that contains the lyrics;
* Text file/HTMl/whatever that contains the guitar chords;
# Creates an audio CD for the choir to listen to, to learn the words and music?
Both of those involve the creation of "derivative works",even if the
lyrics and melody haven't changed.
> For things like translations, changes in words, etc, authors want to be
> contacted first.
That rules out Share Alike clauses.
> Actually, if somebody wants to use a song for other than to sing in the church, authors want to be contacted first.
None of the Creative Commons have anything that comes close to making
that stipulation. Maybe if _Christian Copyright Licensing
International_ was your sole agent for collection, you'd be able to
pull that requirement off.
> The idea is to place the hymnal as a PDF on the Internet, so everybody can download it and print it and use it at their church.
I like the sentiment, but the NC, ND, and SA clauses mitigate against
what you are trying to accomplish.
> All the authors in this effort want to "give" their songs, so churches can use them freely without having to pay royalties,
You chose one of the two Creative Commons licenses for which royalties
have to be paid!
You might want to seriously rethink the license that is to be used.
Do you think you can work with Christian Copyright Licensing International?
Or maybe I should say: "Do you really want to work with Christian
Copyright Licensing International?"
Or with any of the national collection societies--- other than the Dutch one?
( The Dutch one seems to be a lot more reasonable about libre content
than those in other countries.)
> They want to clearly state that they don't want this work to be used for profit.
There are no usable licenses that prevent work from being used for profit.
> So, if using CC BY-NC-ND is not a good way to say this,
BY-NC-ND is a good way to ensure that nobody ever hears about your
project, much less utilizes it. Between who the potential users it
prohibits from utilizing the content, and the restrictions that
prevent the content from being used, there is no audience.
> I really want to hear what is the best way.
You want a license that:
* Requires distribution for gratis;
* Restricts usage to churches;
* Does not mandate royalty payments;
None of the Creative Commons licenses work.
None of the FSI, OSI, or Debian approved licenses work.
xan
jonathon
More information about the cc-community
mailing list