osm at inbox.org
Wed Dec 14 18:03:05 EST 2011
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 5:18 PM, Joe Corneli <holtzermann17 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Are NC/ND works contributing to a rich commons?
Today, or 120 years from now?
What constitutes the "commons"? Has CC defined this? By the standard
definition, only PD/CC0 would be part of the "commons".
Of course, even if you're talking about today, and even if you're
talking about the most narrow definition of "commons", sure NC/ND
> For example, there are things like Kahn Academy,
> but Salman Kahn could have released everything on YouTube without the
> CC-By-NC-SA license, and would it have made a difference?
The license doesn't make a difference. The works do.
> It seems to
> me that the CC-By-NC-SA license is a bit of an afterthought. The
> technology (free videos) was the main idea. Does the license matter
> at all in this case?
In the case of NC, I'd say no. But I wouldn't lump the ND licenses
along with that.
As was pointed out above, the text of the GPL itself is effectively
CC-ND, though it predates CC and doesn't call itself that.
> Similarly I think we should take The Pirate Bay et al. seriously (even
> if RMS doesn't) and ask questions about extra-legal means of
> contributing to the commons. Had Aaron Swartz pulled off what he was
> (allegedly) attempting to do with keepgrabbing.py, he might (arguably)
> have been doing quite a bit for the commons .
I don't think we should engage in theft in order to benefit the commons.
More information about the cc-community