[cc-community] More discussion on NC
a.guadamuz at ed.ac.uk
Mon Oct 11 04:03:01 EDT 2010
On 10/10/2010 21:24, Rob Myers wrote:
>> Interesting examples.I think Wikipedia works regardless of the
>> licensing, IMO what makes Wikipedia work is not the downstream use, but
>> the wiki interface and the community. Lots of small-time editors never
>> care about the licence (at least in my experience).
> I worked for the company that created and ran h2g2.com, which was a
> direct proprietary equivalent to Wikipedia . A non-zero number of users
> got annoyed when they realised they were sharecropping, and the
> licencing of the project was in my opinion one of the reasons it failed
> to reach critical mass.
I can tell you as a user for both. H2g2.com was clumsy, it had the right
idea but was badly implemented. I remember writing an entry on Hull
(long story...), and then never coming back. Not once did I look at the
h2g2 licence, and that was at the time when I was immersed in open
source licensing and writing about the legalities of it. I simply didn't
care. Probably I was typical.
What sold me to wikipedia was not the licence, although I knew what the
GFDL was. Wikipedia was fun and it was easy to edit. I don't think
anyone I know ever cared about the licence. For example, I used
Wikipedia in class, and I can say categorically that a tiny minority of
my students were aware of the licence involved.
>> My point is that there is room for NC.
> NC is taking that room from better licensing IMO, and I'd rather it
> didn't have the CC seal of approval behind it.
This is where we disagree. I don't think that NC is taking room from
better licensing. Under many circumstances NC works, and people like
having the choice (I know I do). If I didn't have the choice, then I'd
draft my own NC licence.
School of Law
Old College, South Bridge
Edinburgh, EH8 9YL
+44 131 6509699
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
More information about the cc-community