[cc-licenses] Non-commercial ***advertising revenue***
peter.brink at brinkdata.se
Tue Mar 13 19:18:29 EDT 2007
drew Roberts skrev:
> I have heard these "private" take arguments as to meaning before. I am
> not disagreeing with the take, but the take will seriously complicate
> the reuse / remix value for CC licensed works (and not just NC at
> that) - Can you imagine a work making use of tne or twenty NC works?
> And some multigenerational at that? And the take of all of those
> people as to what NC means giverns the final use?
This is not something that is particular to CC's licenses. It's the same
for all open source/content licenses. The meaning of any agreement
between two parties is really based on the common understanding of the
parties. What CC thinks really doesn't matter much. The licensor is
quite free to offer an explanation to how he understand the terms under
which he offers grant rights to use his work. The opposite is not true
however. Unless the licensee contacts the licensor and negotiate a
common understanding of a term there is no way for him to affect the
definition of unclear terms. The only path open to him is to use the
standard methods used for interpretating contracts.
If the licensor's explanation is not totally out of line it's therefore
likely to form the base of any interpretations of any unclear or
ambiguous parts of the license. The only thing CC can do to help is
making sure there's a minimum of ambiguous terms or words in the
license. Non-commercial is unfortunately an example of a fairly
imprecise term, which opens up the possibility of wildly varying ways of
interpreting that particular part of the license.
More information about the cc-licenses