[cc-community] Contradictory meanings of "non-commercial"?
andrewrens at gmail.com
Fri Feb 8 11:41:57 EST 2008
> I am no lawyer, but between "not ... for commercial purposes"
> and "not primarily ... directed to commercial advantage" there is a
> big difference.
Could you please explain to me what you see this big difference being
The problem is the following: one might use the licence in
> the belief that it forbids commercial use (it is called
> "non-commercial" after all!) but in fact the legal code
> allows commercial use, especially if it is a secondary aim.
You seem to be suggesting that the NC licence does allow commercial use even
if such use is the primary aim, is that right?
It would also be useful if you could give an example of what constitutes
commercial use as a secondary aim, which illustrates a bona fide non
commercial primary aim.
What is the sense of this apparent contradiction?
> Is the term "primarily" clear for lawers? For example,
> if somebody claims to make losses with the sale/performance/etc.
> of the work, does he conform to the NC licence?
Would the use in your hypothetical be intended to give a profit even if it
fact it did not? Was the use intended for some other commercial advantage
such as a tax loss, to undercut a competitor, or as some kind of "loss
I would be interested if anyone else can suggest practical examples where
there is an apparent lack of clarity around the NC requirement.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the cc-community