[cc-community] [CC+] Any "simple" URL for the deed?

Andreas Borutta borumat at gmx.de
Fri Aug 21 17:16:45 EDT 2009


Nathan Yergler wrote:

>>> CC+ is not a license, only a protocol for specifying where the user
>>> may find additional rights.  So the basic license is unaffected by it.
>>
>> The fact is, that the deed contains a hint "For uses beyond ...".
> 
> Sorry, I thought you were referring to the metadata spec for CC+
> (http://wiki.creativecommons.org/CCPlus).

I thought of the deed which is given by the server, when it gets a
request with the appropriate metadata.

Than, and only than, the deed contains the hint "For uses beyond..."

To clarify my issue:
I think, it is important that the reader of the deed (of a CC+ license
note) always, even when he comes from a manual typed link of an
offline content, gets the information "For uses beyond ...".

>> May be one could regard the CC+ as if there's a new attribute: nc+
>>
>> nc:
>> The licensor does not like commercial use at all. He does like to be
>> bothered with questions about.
>>
>> nc+:
>> The licensor is open for a contact to commercial users.
> 
> I see; that's probably not something we can do at the moment, but
> maybe you can bring it up in the 4.0 process (there's no time frame
> yet, but it's likely coming at some point).

Thanks for your invitation. But I'm, on the one hand, to new to the
whole thing and, on the other hand, I'm involved in a couple of free
projects yet*, so that I don't want to start such an engagement at the
moment.

>>> CC+ will only show up on the deeds if you click through from a web
>>> page that contains the CC+ metadata; you can not construct a URL to
>>> the deed with CC+ information displayed.
>>
>> Yes, that is the actual situation.
>>
>> What do you think about Peter's suggestion?
>>
>>| http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/?plus={URL to plus
>>| conditions set by the author}
> 
> It's most appropriate for this sort of information to be published
> with the work itself and I think that including the link for
> contacting the creator independently in the PDF or on the page hosting
> the PDF is a much better way to communicate this to end users.

May be you're right. Of course I'm not sure, what a majority will
favor.

Let's put an example of a license note in offline content:

1
Photo by mollyali, available under a Creative Commons Plus license
(Attribution-Noncommercial): 
http://creativecommons.org/3/by-nc/?plus=mollyali.com/cc/

versus

2
Photo by mollyali, available under a Creative Commons license
(Attribution-Noncommercial): 
http://creativecommons.org/3/by-nc/
For uses beyond please go to: http://mollyali.com/cc/

I prefer the first one.

Andreas

* for example:
http://fahrradzukunft.de
A free bike magazin in german language. Hope I can convince the
editorial staff to put the magazin under a CC license :)

-- 
http://borumat.de




More information about the cc-community mailing list