[cc-licenses] Alex Bosworth: "Creative Commons Is Broken"
mia at creativecommons.org
Mon Mar 6 17:13:16 EST 2006
what do you mean the definition does not match with reality?
an organization that is established for the purpose of making a
profit has, as adam stated, the objective of making money & thus
everything it does must be assumed ultimately to be connected with a
money-making purpose. even if it offers something for free it is
doing so to increase it's brand and to cultivate favorable PR...for
the purpose of making money.
what would be an alternate definition?
On Mar 6, 2006, at 2:07 PM, drew Roberts wrote:
> On Monday 06 March 2006 04:44 pm, Adam Fields wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 06, 2006 at 04:35:53PM -0500, drew Roberts wrote:
>>>>> so far there have been 2 comments on these. if you think the
>>>>> definition is too vague & CC should do something to clarify it -
>>>>> let's discuss these guidelines!!!
>>> OK, I never before understood that a for profit could never
>>> properly use
>>> an NC work. Since I read the pdf, I cannot tell you how many
>>> people I
>>> have come across who see things as I did. (oops, responding in
>>> the wrong
>> Curious. Why is that not evident? By definition, everything a
>> for-profit corporation does is commercial.
> Perhaps, but definition does not always match with reality. Should
> we always
> go with definition?
> all the best,
> Record a song and you might win $1,000.00
> cc-licenses mailing list
> cc-licenses at lists.ibiblio.org
More information about the cc-licenses