[cc-community] The case for a stricter (or more honest) CC licence than BY-NC-ND
Christoph Schiller
cs at motionmountain.net
Sun Jan 11 02:10:55 EST 2009
Recently I had an interesting email conversation with Nathan from CC,
and he suggested that I repeat the main points here.
(I publish a free 1600 page physics textbook in pdf format, and use
the German
BY-NC-ND licence, but amended it. See www.motionmountain.net )
I think that the BY-NC-ND licence has a problem: it is not
what is pretends to be. It has a crossed out dollar or euro sign in its
logo, but in fact it allows any amount of money to be made,
as long as money is not the "primary" aim.
To be blunt, I think that in this specific case, CC is "cheating" on
its customers,
because most people rely on the crossed out dollar sign, but never
read the
licence text.
"Oh yes, I earned a million dollars with it, but money was not the
primary aim.
I also gave some copies out for free to the poor: that was the
primary aim."
The term "primary" makes the BY-NC-ND licence not worth the paper it
is written on.
Has the term ever been tested in court?
I think that CC should provide a licence with a real, honest crossed
out dollar/euro:
*No* money without permission. In todays world, permissions are
easily asked by email (it happens to me regularly) so there is no
issue here.
I am no expert, but the term "primarily" in the BY-NC-ND licence
seems to put off many people. I have seen this issue raised in
forums in Germany and France over the years. My impression is that
a stricter, honest "no income" licence has a real demand.
Regards
Christoph
More information about the cc-community
mailing list