Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - Re: [cc-licenses] Lawsuit over Virgin Mobile's and Ethical Use

cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: paola.dimaio AT gmail.com
  • To: "Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts" <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] Lawsuit over Virgin Mobile's and Ethical Use
  • Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2007 09:32:31 +0700

> But the term "ethical" is subject to too much change and interpretation
> and would most certainly render the clause void...
>

The term 'ethical' to be valid, can be specified by an annex (a detailed list)



> Yours,
> Karl
>
> drew Roberts schrieb:
> > On Friday 28 September 2007 11:47 pm, paola.dimaio AT gmail.com wrote:
> >
> >> Charles
> >>
> >>
> >>> Can you give a complete definition with what "ethical" means?
> >>>
> >> Well, we are still discussing what 'commercial' means, right?
> >> Even commercial is not that straightforward
> >>
> >> We have non commercial use, not better specified
> >> Then we can also have 'ethical' use, and work it out later
> >>
> >
> > Please no. It will make all the CC licenses basically unuseable. And
> > certainly
> > not for any works that do not contain visual representations of peoples
> > likenesses. And also especially not for BY amd BY-SA licenses. I
> > personally
> > would not object as strongly to such use in anyhting with NC or ND even
> > though I think it ill advised there as well.
> >
> > There is a point in a free society where we need to do good by our fellow
> > man
> > and leave them to be responsible for their abuses.
> >
> > Even the Free Software folks, who many might inagine would want anti
> > military
> > bits in, left them out to keep the code Free.
> >
> > Now, if you or someone else can come up will clean language that somehow
> > will
> > make this work without all the confusion...
> >
> >> It's not so difficult. It's a simple condition that allows to use CC
> >> licensed work only
> >> if it is not used for (see annex). In the annex you can put what you want
> >>
> >
> > This would kill any SA sharing and re-use.
> >
> >> The work covered under this licenses, and any parts thereof, cannot be
> >> used in conjunction with any of the following usages
> >>
> >> - illegal activities (any country)
> >>
> >
> > And this would stop someone why? Is a person willing to abuse a child gonn
> > have second thoughts about abusing your copyright?
> >
> >
> >> - activities against human rights charter
> >> - activities that exploit and abuse people especially children
> >>
> >
> > See above.
> >
> >> - to sell unhealthy product and products that harm the environment
> >>
> >
> > Now, this may be possible. A clause to the effect, that commercial does
> > not
> > cover "endorsement" uses perhaps? Especially with respect to peoples
> > images
> > again.
> >
> >> etcetera
> >>
> >> Any usage that is not in the black list, would not require permission
> >> Any usage that is in the black list, is prohibited
> >>
> >
> > If it is a standard back list... But if each person gets to put in their
> > own
> > back list... Kiss SA goodbye...
> >
> >> simple as that
> >>
> >>
> >>> Unless you are using the word "ethical" is way that I'm unfamiliar
> >>> with... "ethics" are rules that a person voluntarily chooses to
> >>> follow. And which rules do and don't make up their "ethical code" is
> >>> up to them.
> >>>
> >> I chose not to drink coke, and to to eat McDonalds hamburgers, and not
> >> to promote
> >> pornography and belligerant and slanderous websites, and not to do
> >> phisihing scams nor hack other people property and generally be
> >> respectful and kind
> >>
> >
> > All well and good.
> >
> >> and I am also responsible for the work that I produce not be used
> >> against my principles
> >>
> >
> > Keep it to yourself then. In a Free society, you are not responsible for
> > this.
> > Those who do the dirty works are responsible.
> >
> >>> (In other words... for each person... what is and isn't ethical is
> >>> different.)
> >>>
> >> sure - but we all agree in principle on certain points, right?
> >>
> >
> > If only...
> >
> >>> Now... the problem with putting an "ethical" clause into a license is
> >>> that if you do NOT completely define and explicitly list what the
> >>> rules that make up your "ethical code", then things are completely
> >>> ambiguous. And a person won't know what they can and can't do.
> >>>
> >> agreed. Let me start working on a an ANNEX
> >>
> >>
> >> Cheers
> >>
> >> Paola
> >>
> >>
> >>> --
> >>>
> >>> Charles Iliya Krempeaux, B.Sc. <http://ChangeLog.ca/>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Vlog Razor... Vlogging News
> >>> http://vlograzor.com/
> >>>
> >
> > all the best,
> >
> > drew
> > _______________________________________________
> > cc-licenses mailing list
> > cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
> > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> cc-licenses mailing list
> cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses
>


--
Paola Di Maio
School of IT
www.mfu.ac.th
*********************************************




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page