[cc-licenses] Dumping CC-BY-NC-ND and Narrowing CC-BY-ND
Greg London
email at greglondon.com
Thu Apr 27 20:29:58 EDT 2006
> So, why did Creative Commons choose the word Commons
> if it has nothing to do with their aims?
CC-BY is a "commons" license, in the strictest definition
of "commons" meaning a public domain, a shared pasture
with no fences. But this is a "commons" that can have
bits of it fenced off, in a way, since it allows
restrictions to be added.
CC-SA is a "commons" license, in the other definition
of the term meaning a "commons" for those willing to share,
i.e. CC-SA specifically prevents you from putting a fence
across the commons. and if you use it as a commons, it
acts like a commons to you. It has the "restriction"
that you can't restrict it, if you want to put it that way.
Other CC licenses are not "commons" licenses.
So, you can't really say it has "nothing" to do with
the word Commons. What licenses folks choose to use
is up to them. I do agree that CC should be clear that
not all of its licenses are "commons" licenses, that it
be clear that it isn't "all commons, all the time", but
if it satisfies that, I have no problem with it calling
itself "Creative Commons".
Greg
Bounty Hunters: Metaphors for Fair IP laws
http://www.greglondon.com/bountyhunters/
More information about the cc-licenses
mailing list