[cc-community] More discussion on NC
rob at robmyers.org
Sun Oct 10 16:24:56 EDT 2010
On 10/10/2010 08:46 PM, Andres Guadamuz wrote:
> On 10/10/2010 17:52, Rob Myers wrote:
>> Wikipedia, Project Gutenberg, flickr, OCAL, OpSound, OpenStreetMap,
>> FreeSound, Sita Sings The Blues, the Blender Foundation movies, none of
>> these are NC (or in the case of Flickr, NC only).
> Interesting examples.I think Wikipedia works regardless of the
> licensing, IMO what makes Wikipedia work is not the downstream use, but
> the wiki interface and the community. Lots of small-time editors never
> care about the licence (at least in my experience).
I worked for the company that created and ran h2g2.com, which was a
direct proprietary equivalent to Wikipedia . A non-zero number of users
got annoyed when they realised they were sharecropping, and the
licencing of the project was in my opinion one of the reasons it failed
to reach critical mass.
Like the Linux kernel's GPL licensing, if the licensing is right you can
afford not to care about it and do things "just for fun". ;-)
> Project Gutenberg is mostly based on the public domain.
Which (obviously) isn't NC, although PG have NC-licensed the collective
copyright on their CDs/DVDs which I think is a bit silly.
> flickr has a lot of mixed content, from large chungs of All Rights
> Reserved to also large chunks of NC content. It does work because people
> still upload content to it.
Sure. But not being NC-only hasn't hurt it. (Yes I appreciate that the
inverse also applies *but* NC clearly isn't *required* for flickr to
work. :-) )
> Point taken about OpenStreetMap, that is pretty much an NC project.
It's a BY-SA project that goes out of its way to be friendly to
commercial contributors and users.
> Funnily enough, I found most data-related content is very similar in
> scope and downstream use to software. Data is, after all, similar to code.
I think there are useful comparisons, yes, but I also think there are
useful comparisons to cultural works and their production and use,
particularly mass-media ones.
> My point is that there is room for NC.
NC is taking that room from better licensing IMO, and I'd rather it
didn't have the CC seal of approval behind it.
If GNU had started with a GPL-NC in addition to the regular GPL, it
wouldn't just be HURD we'd still be waiting for.
> Maybe in the future. As things stand, I am their guinea pig and my book
> will be the first book they will publish with a CC licence. We are
> talking about conservative UK academic publishing, there is not even a
> e-book option in the making :)
That is cool. :-)
More information about the cc-community