[cc-licenses] NC Proposal No. 12: clarifying noncommercial
andrewrens at gmail.com
Tue May 8 14:26:04 EDT 2012
On 8 May 2012 12:46, Heather Morrison <hgmorris at sfu.ca> wrote:
> As a reminder, proposals for NC 4.0 can be found on the wiki. It might be
> helpful to move discussion forward to refer to the proposals on the wiki,
> or to create new ones for discussion.
> My proposal to clarify noncommercial addresses a number of the questions
> coming up in discussion in recent days (from my viewpoint). Does anyone
> have specific feedback on this proposal?
There is a trend for the Open Education Community to use CC By for open
educational resources. For example Connexions uses CC By. Siyavula, the
most successful open school textbook project in the world uses CC By.
The explicit reference to education in a future non-commercial license
would divert some licensors from using CC By resulting in fewer free
culture licensed works.
NC Proposal No. 12 (Heather Morrison): NC Proposal No.12 Define NC to
> specifically allow educational uses. "(f) NonCommercial means not intended
> for re-sale or re-use of the Licensed Work for private monetary
> compensation (for example, as a means to attract advertising revenue). For
> purposes of this Public License, the exchange of the Licensed Work by
> digital file-sharing or similar means is NonCommercial provided there is no
> payment of monetary compensation in connection with the exchange. For the
> avoidance of doubt, educational use - teaching and learning - is
> Noncommercial, and permitted by this Public License, while including the
> content in a package intended for sale to educational institutions for
> profit is Commercial, and prohibited by this Public License.
This would replace the problem of defining non commercial with the problem
of defining educational use or 'teaching and learning'.
Is that either teaching or learning, or must both teaching and learning
Is that intended to be auto-dicactic use?
Is use by British American Tobacco for in house training teaching and
Is use by Kaplan.com teaching and learning?
Is use by Pearson incorporates the work into a textbook that it sells is
that still educational use?
What if Harvard incorporates the work into a cousepack that it sells to its
students, is that teaching and learning?
And if Harvard sells the coursepack to all comers is that taching and
If I use the work on my blog that also earns ad revenue and I deem my blog
to a teaching blog then is that permitted?
Under NC #8 someone commented: "In educational use, I often want to have
CC-NC licensed materials printed through print-on-demand companies. It is
unclear whether this is commercial or not, since the printing company is
certainly making a profit."
It us unclear whether "including the content in a package intended for sale
to educational institutions for profit is Commercial" permits use of print
on demand or not.
This proposal does however avoid license proliferation.
> Web-based or other discovery services that rely on advertising revenue,
> such as search engines, may use advertising IN CONNECTION WITH THEIR
> SERVICES in connecting searchers to this content; this does not constitute
> commercial use of the content. Advertising that constitutes exploitation of
> the content for commercial purposes, such as advertising inserted into a
> derivative, advertising that readers are forced to watch before viewing the
> content, creating the impression of sponsorship, or advertising that
> implies that the creator endorses the advertised product, constitutes
> commercial use and is prohibited by this license."
> I would also like to point to NC Proposal No. 9 (Brian Carver), to:
> "Create a new CC license, NC-EDU, that prohibits non-commercial uses, but
> allows educational uses".
1. This will result in license proliferation.
2. There is a trend in the OER community to use CC By licences, Connexions
uses CC By and Siyavula, the most successful open school textbook project
uses CC By.
If a specific education licence were created this would divert some
licensors from CC By thus resulting in fewer Free Culture works.
3. An education license is likely to suffer from the same marketing problem
as the development license, potential licensors thought that the license
was intended for use by developing countries, rather than by anyone who
wanted to allow use in a developing country. CC ultimately deprecated the
development license. Licensors intent on preventing what they believe to be
commercial use of their works would think that educational institutions
should use the educational license.
4. This would raise the difficult issue of coherently defining education.
> Both 12 and 9 address a desire for NC without impeding educational use.
> The main difference between the two approaches is that one creates a new
> license (#9), while the other clarifies the NC definition (#12).
> Heather Morrison
> List info and archives at
> Unsubscribe at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/options/cc-licenses
> In consideration of people subscribed to this list to participate
> in the CC licenses http://wiki.creativecommons.org/4.0 development
> process, please direct unrelated discussions to the cc-community list
ex africa semper aliquid novi (http://aliquidnovi.org)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the cc-licenses