[cc-community] More discussion on NC
cc at phizz.demon.co.uk
Sun Oct 10 13:05:31 EDT 2010
On 10/10/2010 14:01, Andrew Rens wrote:
> On 10 October 2010 07:21, Lloyd <cc at phizz.demon.co.uk
> <mailto:cc at phizz.demon.co.uk>> wrote:
> On 10/10/2010 00:18, Andrew Rens wrote:
> Before I misrepresent him here is the link to his blog post. Its not
> about NC its about creating a range of licenses that cover an entire
> license space: http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/67
> I think it is no coincidence that the most successful open source
> projects are also core computer science topic covered by
> universities... Hardly any of the crowd sourcing activites that
> occur with open source applies to the works that are most often
> associated with CC licenses, with the exception of wikipedia.
> What does this mean for NC, that NC is a good idea or not? That NC would
> prevent successful large scale projects or that NC will result in large
> scale projects?
Well it certainly means that wikipedia have to settle for second rate
images or at least they deny themselves the millions of CC-NC images
that could be available to them. And in my experience people do not
understand CC-BY on flickr there are continual complaints that some
one's CC-BY licensed work has been used commercially.
You'll find that the contributors to wikipedia also get a little pissy
when they discover that articles that they've worked on are are being
exploited commercially (well yes that is what CC-BY-SA means). Or when
they've worked on restoring some old photographs and then find them
being sold as prints on eBay etc. A lot of them, once they realize that
they are basically providing free copy for some commercial publisher
stop working on wikipedia altogether. They go away feeling somewhat cheated.
More information about the cc-community