[cc-community] Want your comments and feedback on Selling CC-By-SA-NC
zotz at 100jamz.com
Sun Oct 10 12:51:45 EDT 2010
On Sunday 10 October 2010 12:29:16 Lloyd wrote:
> On 10/10/2010 14:03, drew Roberts wrote:
> > On Saturday 09 October 2010 21:17:31 Lloyd wrote:
> >> On 09/10/2010 23:54, Andrew Rens wrote:
> >>> Questions on NC
> >> For me the NC license says don't use this in some money making scheme
> >> without asking first. The reuser knows whether their use is for the
> >> purposes of making money or not. Most cases of reuse are NC anyway.
> >> I have no sympathy for the complaint that the NC clause means they can't
> >> be combined with BY-SA works. The same is true woith BY-SA works as a
> >> user of NC works the BY-SA works are just as tainted to me as my NC
> >> works are tainted to the BY-SA user.
> > I have never seen such a complaint. What has been pointed out is that you
> > likely cannot combine multiple BY-NC-SA works from people with different
> > NC takes. In effect, one NC-SA license is not the same as another NC-SA
> > license. Despite possible claims to the contrary in the license. Right?
> I'm not sure what you are complaining about now. The majority of NC uses
> do not go anywhere near some dubious commercial use. The only people
> that complain about the NC clause appears to those BY-SA reusers that
> want to attempt to commercialize the content.
Don't want to do this, except perhaps by fixing the law itself.
> What I don't see is those
> that are using NC works complaining about not be able to use BY-SA
> works. We leave the BY-SA people all alone in the Land of Beulah that
> they've made for themselves.
Now you are getting close to the heart of the problem. The Creative Commons is
not a commons at all. We really do not have that much in common. Trying to
put us in a common organization is almost certainly going to lead to such
I often go looking for BY and BY-SA works, this is tough enough. Now I also
need to waste my time exploring the links that mention some work I may be
interested in is "Creative Commons Licensed" or some similar almost
non-statement. Since NC does indeed seem more popular in many (perhaps almost
all) contexts, I follow a lot of links and waste a lot of time looking at
stuff I have no real interest in.
If instead there were two separate groups, one making the Free licenses and
one making the non-Free licenses, I would be happy enough and not waste so
much of my time.
There would still be the larger issue to combat which is the damage being done
to our society in the name of copyright but it would be more of a discussion
of people pulling in the same direction rather than this constant loggeheads
situation which results of CC putting such different groups under the same
I do try to be civil in all of my posts. Not sure we can do better given the
all the best,
More information about the cc-community