[cc-community] NC/ND

Chris Sakkas sanglorian at gmail.com
Tue Dec 13 18:31:01 EST 2011

Hi folks,

I've been following these discussions with interest.

I don't think it's feasible to remove the 'Creative Commons' label from NC
and ND licences. One thing that makes CC distinctive and - I suspect -
successful is that it offers a range of licences all united under the CC

However, I think NC and ND licences could be discouraged by explicitly
noting that they are non-free, non-libre, non-open licences. Free, libre
and open are terms that have a lot of cachet that are more narrowly defined
than most people think. If people were made aware that their CC NC book
isn't 'open source', that may encourage them to use CC BY or BY-SA.

What do you think?

*Chris Sakkas

On 14 December 2011 10:25, Mike Linksvayer <ml at creativecommons.org> wrote:

> On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 2:10 PM,  <cc at phizz.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > On 13/12/2011 11:39, Joe Corneli wrote:
> >> 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
> >> future?
> >
> > Why so?
> This deserves a longer response, but in brief:
> (1) Allowing commercial use unlocks a lot more social benefit
> (2) Lots of publicly funded and otherwise intended for public benefit
> projects use NC
> (3) Lots of not particularly publicly interested projects use NC, but
> don't actually have any copyright-based revenue stream to protect
> (4) Beyond the over-use of NC (and under-use of fully open licenses)
> implied by 1-3, NC further restricts the overall value of the commons
> because it is fundamentally not compatible with fully open licenses,
> meaning the commons is more fractured, smaller, and less impactful
> than it could be
> [Note one could probably substitute ND for NC above and make an even
> stronger case.]
> There are a bunch of different options for "discouraging" use of NC
> (and ND) -- I'd prefer to think of it as encouraging fully open
> licenses, but to a large extent those are flipsides. Given 1-4 above,
> some or all ought increase CC's social benefit. Options include very
> soft things, like recommendations to specific groups that most people
> never see, or light touches on the license buttons and chooser to
> further differentiate between semi- and fully open, to stronger
> measures like calling licenses with NC or ND in them something other
> than "CC" licenses, to measures that might both increase
> differentiation and make at least NC licenses more attractive to
> entities that don't really want to share more than a tiny bit
> (tightening the definition of NC in the licenses).
> Which are optimal for 4.0 (and for the next decade or so ... 4.0 ought
> have a very, very long lifespan), there's the question.
> > Many people use the NC license and are more willing to supply
> > image to initiatives like the Encyclopedia of Life than to wikispecies
> > for example.
> EoL is pretty interesting as a site/organization that (1) accepts NC
> works (but not ND; I'm guessing they need to be able to crop, excerpt,
> etc for their context), (2) AFAICT their uses look unambiguously
> "noncommercial", triggering none of the usual edge cases (eg they're
> nonprofit, no ads, not selling anything), (3) actually relies on the
> CC licenses offered by third parties, not requesting permissions that
> uploaders don't have to give, nor relying on nobody to care or other
> exceptions and arrangements. See
> http://eol.org/info/eol_licensing_policy
> I can't think of many significant sites that fit in all 3 of those
> buckets. Has anyone analyzed the works and terms thereof for works
> used by EoL, and re-use elsewhere of those works? That'd be
> interesting, perhaps even relevant.
> Comparison to Wikispecies and other Wikimedia projects could be
> interesting too. Neither Wikispecies nor Wikipedia(s) are
> apples-to-apples comparisons for EoL (when I want to look up info
> about a species, I go to Wikipedia; neither Wikispecies nor EoL even
> crosses my mind, but maybe they will now), but still could be curious.
> > If your ideology is assaulted by NC works there is no compulsion on you
> > to use them.
> I didn't see any ideologically-charged language in Joe's post. He was
> describing consequences. Let's try to keep it that way in both
> directions.
> Mike
> _______________________________________________
> cc-community mailing list
> cc-community at lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-community/attachments/20111214/511a4b6c/attachment-0001.html 

More information about the cc-community mailing list