holtzermann17 at gmail.com
Tue Dec 13 06:39:54 EST 2011
there are probably many discussions about this already, but I want to
add my voice.
I find NC and ND confusing and in many ways extremely frustrating. I
always assume that (both) these licenses mean that I cannot remix or
republish the work, firstly because the non-profit I work with has
ads, and secondly because even if we allowed NC works, I don't want to
"corrupt" our collection of CC-By-SA content with NC works that would
restrict downstream users.
And yet, the world moves on.
Places like http://www.theorangegrove.org/ ("Florida's Digital
Repository") talk about the benefit of "openness" and even the
benefits of "remixing" in a recent report -- but they use the
"non-free" CC licenses on their works!
Here, for example, is a book called "The Public Domain: Enclosing the
Commons of the Mind"
which has been released under a Creative Commons
Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 License.
It's all fine and good that institutions like MIT use CC-NC-SA -- I
mean, it's there prerogative, right, if they want to "share" things
that other people can't actually "use" (apparently without a second
thought) -- but can't Creative Commons do something to discourage
other organizations and individuals from using these licenses in the
For example, in the 4.0 series, the "non-free" human readable
summaries could explicitly say,
"This is a non-free license, and Creative Commons implores you NOT to
use it, and use one of our great free licenses instead. If you choose
to ignore our advice, please know that all of your downstream users
will see this notice and clearly understand that you are restricting
their ability to do anything cool or useful with the content you've
Something like that might send a strong message!
More information about the cc-community