osm at inbox.org
Wed Dec 14 16:25:50 EST 2011
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 4:11 PM, Mike Linksvayer <ml at creativecommons.org> wrote:
> I just have to say that of course BY-NC-ND is not at all, legally, a
> _Your Rights Removed_ EULA. All CC licenses don't effect exceptions &
> limitations, allow format shifting, and filesharing. But I'm sure
> everyone reading this knows that.
Right. In legal terms, "Nothing in this License is intended to
reduce, limit, or restrict any uses free from copyright or rights
arising from limitations or exceptions that are provided for in
connection with the copyright protection under copyright law or other
> If some CC licenses are widely perceived as adding restrictions,
> that's a bad thing, and to be weighed.
It's right there in the "human-readable summary", as well as the
questions that one answers to choose a license:
"You may not use this work for commercial purposes."
"Allow commercial uses of your work?"
It seems clear to me that the plain language of that means that you
can't *use* an NC work (for instance, one you borrowed from the
library) *for* commercial purposes (for instance, to help you as a
mechanic fix an automobile you're being paid to work on).
> I would love to
> have some good research on perception of the various licenses and
> effects of such perception, but I don't know of any. Doing such
> research would be another way to help. :-)
I'd certainly be biased on that one, even if it was something I was
capable of undertaking. Really anything other than a CC led study is
likely to be biased.
More information about the cc-community