Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - Re: [cc-licenses] Commercial Rights Reserved

cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Valentin Villenave <valentin AT villenave.net>
  • To: Development of Creative Commons licenses <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] Commercial Rights Reserved
  • Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 20:56:34 +0000

On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 3:24 PM, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell AT gmail.com> wrote:
> Perhaps you misread Valentin's message? I believe the claim with
> respect to what authors actually *do* is that they actually reserve
> them; not that they put them primary in the commercial realm.

That is what I meant. (And of course, one should read "NC" instead of
"ND" in my former message.)

On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 4:08 PM, Carlos Solís <csolisr AT riseup.net> wrote:
> Given that we're talking about Commercial Rights Reserved, why not talk
> about Derivation Rights Reserved as a clearer alternative to Non
> Derivatives? Perhaps some users may think that they're no longer allowed to
> edit their own works. Also it would give a more uniform labeling to
> restrictions currently considered non-free, not unlike the All Rights
> Reserved denomination.

"Derivation Rights Reserved" is a brillant idea. (The wording should
also emphasize the difference between Derivation and Modification:
creating a new, Derivative Work is _not_ the same as "Modifying the
existing Work". Too many people still think that’s what it means -- to
wit, rms' excuse for using -ND everywhere.)

On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 5:56 PM, Heather Morrison <hgmorris AT sfu.ca> wrote:
> Noncommercial is not optimal either. However, from a language perspective
> it is better than "commercial rights reserved" because it gives the creator
> an opportunity to say that "this is outside of the commercial realm".
> Things that are outside of the commercial realm can be brought into it -
> however for some of us, expanding the portion of the world that is outside
> of commerce is a very important statement, and it's fine if it is vague.

"Outside of the realm" may sound nice from a philosophical point of
view, but this is a _legal_ document we’re talking about here. In my
opinion, "vagueness over clarity" is exactly the sort of things we
ought to avoid in this particular case; whilst I can certainly agree
that the world cannot be entirely defined with exact, black-and-white
legal notions, there is an argument to be made that "vagueness", once
you’re in a court of law, will systematically benefit the party with
the most numerous and overpaid lawyers.

Cheers,
Valentin.




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page