[cc-licenses] Simplifying Licenses
zotz at 100jamz.com
Tue Mar 3 15:14:08 EST 2009
On Monday 02 March 2009 14:31:47 Arthit Suriyawongkul wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 10:12 AM, ⸘Ŭalabio‽ <Walabio at macosx.com> wrote:
> > CC-BY-SA is the GoldStandard of licenses. In a perfect world,
> > everything would be CC-BY-SA
> > CC-BY-NC-SA is the necessary evil. We should discourage it but
> > allow it.
> From the consumer point of view,
But this is a problem here in and of itself. One of the main lessons to be
learned with the spread of modern technology (if one did not get it before)
is that people, given half a chance, will do more than consume.
> I myself see little difference between
> by-sa and by-nc-sa, as even by-sa doesn't restrict the commercialization,
So by-sa doesn't restrict the commercialization and by-nc-sa does restrict the
commercialization and you see little difference? I don't get that thinking.
> the sa condition provide an alternative to the commercial anyway.
> So from the consumer point of view, there's virtually no difference
> in terms of free access to the same information.
> But, yes, from the copyright holder point of view, there's a major
> difference, by-nc-sa provide the holder the rights to monopolize the
> So it depends on which point you looking from.
> And it should be copyright holder who has freedom to decide.
> But in general, if being asked for a consultation which license to choose,
> I prefer to encourage ppl to took by-sa over by-nc-sa.
> And although it constitute a "non-green license" (approved for free
> cultural works), I do see necessity of nd.
> 6 licenses as they are now is good for me.
> But it would be nice if we can put some 'recommendation'
> (extending from what we currently do with 'green'/'yellow' color code).
That would be nice once the recommendations were sensible...
all the best,
More information about the cc-licenses