Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - Re: [cc-licenses] Does this case falls underCC Attribution-NonCommercial 2.5?

cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] Does this case falls underCC Attribution-NonCommercial 2.5?
  • Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2006 22:51:27 +0000

Terry wrote:
The last line of that section is the link to the NonCommercial
Guidelines in pdf.

And that, my friends, is my personal definition of "buried".
*Opposite*, for all intents and purposes, from "published".

In comparison to the earlier guidelines, that is published.

Raising the question: "Why?"

I'd suggest that CC is still trying to determine what it means by "Non-Commercial".

Whilst the current guidelines are fairly clear, they leave some major loopholes --- so much so, that I seriously doubt that the NC prohibits what people think it is intended to prohibit, namely all commercial usage of the material.

Rob wrote:

>The community seems neatly split over whether NC means "you cannot charge for the use of NC content" or you cannot be a commercial organisation and use NC content".

One set of the guidelines implies that even a 501(3)(c) organization can be a "commercial" user, and hence ineligible to use material with an NC label. [Political organizations are specifically listed as being "commercial". There also is a footnote suggesting that perhaps "religious" organizations are "commercial".]

Of course, the kicker is that that set of guidelines defines any use, by any government agency as being "commercial". [IOW, the only beneficiaries of MIT's material are other private institutions. All government agencies are prohibited from using their material.]

> CC are going to have to upset someone at some point over NC. That someone may have to be MIT.

I think it will be other universities that will get upset, when MIT sues them for licence violation for using their material. [I wonder if MIT deliberately chose the NC licence, knowing that no public educational institution in the US would be permitted to use their material, under that licence?]

> I'm also worried that the temptation to produce an "Educational" license to avoid this problem will increase. An Educational license would be really bad,

It depends upon what the "educational" licence says. As it currently stands, all material with an NC licence, is effectively "out of reach" of public educational organizations. An "education" clause might be able to clarify that even though the organization is a public agency, it may use the material.

xan

jonathon




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page