[cc-community] What does NC means?

Milos Rancic millosh at gmail.com
Thu Sep 20 08:50:33 EDT 2007


And one more thing: I am not against NC at all. I am pointing that NC
licenses have been very bad done: They are not protecting (ordinary)
authors, while they are making a lot of problems to (ordinary) users.

On 9/20/07, Milos Rancic <millosh at gmail.com> wrote:
> If you put your NC work on Wikimedia (even you are not able to do so
> because NC licenses are not permited), *I* am not able to copy your
> work on any commercial provider because I am then allowing third party
> to make profit. Of course that you may do whatever you want with your
> work.
>
> On 9/20/07, Giorgos Cheliotis <giorgos at smu.edu.sg> wrote:
> > Dear Milos, with all respect even if I sympathize with your love for
> > free culture, I find that your attacks on NC are sometimes misplaced.
> > Even when I put the NC work on Wikimedia, I may be using a commercial
> > ISP to do so. Does this mean I have violated the NC constraint? I don't
> > think so. What if I put it on my personal ad-free blog which happens to
> > be hosted on a commercial provider? Again, it would be entirely
> > unreasonable to call this a violation of the NC constraint.
> >
> > NC can be simply interpreted as "you can use/share my work but don't try
> > to make money off that use". There is nothing very complicated about
> > that. There will be cases where it is not entirely clear what
> > constitutes commercial use, and the lawyers among us can battle it out,
> > but this is beside the point. Most people with a brain between their
> > ears will get the simple message that they should not try to make money
> > from this work, unless they negotiate a separate license with the
> > author. It is rather simple after all, if you try to think for a second
> > about how NC could work, instead of looking for reasons why it won't
> > work.
> >
> > Now if someone would start a new thread please :)
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: cc-community-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org
> > > [mailto:cc-community-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of
> > > Milos Rancic
> > > Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 6:24 PM
> > > To: cc-community at lists.ibiblio.org
> > > Subject: Re: [cc-community] What does NC means?
> > >
> > > On 9/18/07, Giorgos Cheliotis <giorgos at smu.edu.sg> wrote:
> > > > 1. BY-NC-ND allows for file-sharing, so BY-NC-ND does not equal (C)
> > >
> > > If BY-NC(-ND) work was put on Flickr, you are not able to
> > > share it on Picasa. Also, you are not able to share any
> > > non-commercial-provider-shared work on some commercial
> > > provider. In other words, only well known place where such
> > > works may be legally shared are places like Wikimedia and
> > > Internet Archive (but, I am sure that you are not able to
> > > share it on Wikimedia and I am not sure that it may be shared
> > > on Internet Archive). In all cases you are giving possibility
> > > to the third party to make profit on that work.
> > >
> > > Also, you are not even able to share it on your blog if your
> > > blog stays on some commercial provider (like, for example,
> > > Blogspot and Wordpress are).
> > >
> > > So, this is just one obvious oxymoron.
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > cc-community mailing list
> > > cc-community at lists.ibiblio.org
> > > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > cc-community mailing list
> > cc-community at lists.ibiblio.org
> > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community
> >
>


More information about the cc-community mailing list