[cc-licenses] Version 3.0 -- It's Happening & With BY-SA CompatibilityLanguageToo
James Grimmelmann
james at grimmelmann.net
Thu Feb 15 14:10:46 EST 2007
Jonathon Blake wrote:
> James wrote:
>
>> So too is the practice of saying "a Creative Commons license" without
> saying which one.
>
> My working definition is that CC by itself explicitly means the
> CC-NC-ND 2.0 licence.
>
> The most restrictive, not the most popular. [The most popular being
> CC-NC 2.5 variants.]
Yes . . . and "Creative Commons license" by itself could also mean the
Sampling license, which in many ways is even more restrictive. With
Sampling and NC-ND on the table, there is no use (in excess of the
copyright baseline) that is guaranteed by all Creative Commons licenses.
Skepticism with a tinge of mistrust is the attitude to take until
someone tells you *which* license is involved. And "Creative
Commons-like license" is a sign to be very cautious indeed.
James
More information about the cc-licenses
mailing list