[cc-licenses] NonDerivative NonCommercial Licenses
zotz at 100jamz.com
Tue Mar 7 17:30:47 EST 2006
On Tuesday 07 March 2006 05:24 pm, Greg London wrote:
> > Greg wrote:
> >> In my opinion, NC-SA is pointless and might as well just be NC,
> > I use the NC-SA licence.
> > My "document" is roughly 5 000 pages long.
> > If somebody wants to distribute a 20 page extract, they can do so
> > under the NC-SA licence. With an NC-ND licence they could not do so.
> Again, in my opinion, taking a work licensed NC and
> adding ShareAlike is pointless. ShareAlike is for
> GiftEconomies. And there is no gift economy that
> is going to spring up around a work that is licensed NC.
> That you license your work NonCommercial is fine.
> I don't have any problem at all with that.
> But putting "Share Alike" on it won't affect
> how the work is used at all, except theoretically.
Greg, you do not specifically address his point though. I think from what you
are saying, you would tell him to just use BY-NC and he will get the same
bang for the buck as BY-NC-SA, the thing is, he is considering only BY-NC-ND
Did I misstate something on the part of either of you?
> Unless you expect fourth, fifth, and sixth generation
> derivatives of your work (or more), then Share Alike
> doesn't actually come into play. If you write it and
> license it CC-NC-SA, and then Alice makes a derivative,
> then Bob takes Alice's vesion and makes his derivative,
> and Charlie takes Bob's work and makes a derivitiave of that,
> then Share Alike may make a difference.
> But if you write it, and license it CC-NC-SA and Alice
> makes a derivitive of your work, but no one makes a
> derivative of Alice's version, they go back to your
> original instead, then the ShareAlike portion never
> came into play.
> Which is also fine, I just have an opinion that ShareAlike
> should only be used exclusively by itself for true
> gift economy projects. But that's just me.
all the best,
Record a song and you might win $1,000.00
More information about the cc-licenses