[cc-licenses] 4.0 NonCommercial
greg at grossmeier.net
Mon Jan 23 16:29:44 EST 2012
Catching up on this thread on a plane...
<quote name="Rob Myers" date="2012-01-13" time="20:03:23 +0000">
> On 13/01/12 17:59, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> > That's the route I think CC should do. NC and ND should allow people
> > to open up their heads to the concept, find alternate ways to get
> > money from their works (or acknowledge their works aren't made just to
> > get money), and end up picking up a real free license, contributing to
> > the commons.
> Is there any evidence that this happens? I've asked in the past,
> probably not for a year or two now, but last time there was no evidence
> that people were choosing free licenses after initially going NC or ND.
Springer (the scholarly publisher) has recently changed the license the
use for their Open Access articles from CC BY-NC to CC BY. I don't have
the link on me right now as I'm on a plane writing this, but there was a
@creativecommons tweet/dent about it last week.
This is, of course, an example of a company moving towards increased
freedom, not an individual (even though it is the individual authors
that hold the copyright, the license their work is published under is
not their choice, it is Springer's).
Also, this is, of course, just an anecdote, but I do think you will see
more and more scholarly publishers, at least, moving to Attribution-only
licenses in the near future. It will be a competitive disadvantage for
them NOT to have their material reused in awesome ways (and thus seen by
more people increasing their brand recognition). This is all my own
conjecture, of course.
More information about the cc-licenses