jonathon.blake at gmail.com
Wed Dec 14 15:18:05 EST 2011
On 14/12/11 17:41, Anthony wrote:
> The problems with the NC licenses go far beyond that. They muddy the
> waters as to what is permitted. In fact, the way they are implemented
> *confuses* authors as to what they are permitting.
Back to my favorite description of CC-BY-SA-NC: "It doesn't protect what
you think it protects, and it does not grant what you think it grants."
> The question for the NC license is "Allow commercial uses of your
work?" But copyright *does not cover use* of a work. It covers
copying, it covers distribution, it covers modification, and it covers
NC refers to distribution. Distribution must be non-commercial in
nature. Precisely what "non-commercial" means, is subject to debate.
NC also allows/requires the collection of royalty payments for audio and
visual works. BY-SA does not have that clause. (Indeed, I've seen it
argued that BY-SA prohibits collection of royalty payments for audio and
> For NC licenses to cover *use* of a work they would need to be EULAs, and they are not (they explicitly are not).
There are those that treat CC-BY-NC-ND as a _Your Rights Removed_ EULA.
More information about the cc-community