[cc-community] What does NC means?

jonathon jonathon.blake at gmail.com
Sun Sep 16 01:24:21 EDT 2007


Milos wrote:

> more useless then I was thinking before (I was thinking that it is just useless).

I do see a place for CC-BY-NC-SA.
It just does not do what most people seem to think it does.

Perhaps there is a place for the  CC-BY-NC-ND license, but I haven't found one.
I'd suggest that 99% of the people who select this license (BY-NC-ND),
did so thinking that it covered something that it does not cover.

> I think that there is a need for protecting authors in some cases.

What of an author's needs protection?
How does it need protection?

What problems/issues are you trying to solve?

>And I think that CC should work on such kind of issues.

Creative Commons Foundation is literally pioneering
cross-jurisdictional licensing law.

Consider one little detail:
* In Anglo-American law (US) a contract requires consideration;
* In Roman-Dutch law (South Africa) a contract does not require consideration;
* I've forgotten my Code Napoleon (France) but consideration is
treated differently, than under either Anglo-American law, of
Roman-Dutch law.
That difference is why the Creative Commons Licenses are contracts in
some countries, but not in other countries.

> But, it seems that CC doesn't work properly to protect authors rights.

It does, and it doesn't.
* Licenses are hard work;
* The Creative Commons Licenses are not geared to specific mediums.
This make them even harder to craft;

What is needed, is one of two things:
* Licenses crafted for each specific medium.  painting, photography,
sculpture, dance, music, databases, novels, etc;
* The abolishment of NC and ND licenses;

> I think that I will use only GPL and GFDL until SFDL would be finished.

GPL is unusable for creative expression.
(What is the "source code" of a ballet?   What is the source code of a
document in Moon?)

GFDL has a different set of issues, ensuring that it creates non-libre content.

SFDL fails the DRM Dave scenario, which means that although it
ostensibly meets Freedoms 0 thru 3, you can still end up with
something that is non-free by design.
( Debian-Legal can justify why something that is non-free can be
called "libre".  They were the one's who made that determination.)

xan

jonathon

I am not a lawyer.   This is not legal advice.  Consult a lawyer for
sound legal advice.


More information about the cc-community mailing list