zotz at 100jamz.com
Mon Dec 19 19:47:27 EST 2011
On Monday 19 December 2011 19:06:50 Mike Linksvayer wrote:
> > I guess it wasn't that interesting. I was going to ask then what's
> > the difference between BY-NC and BY-NC-SA, but I guess the difference
> > is that under BY-NC you can add *your own* additions and don't have to
> > license *them* under BY-NC.
> I'm not entirely sure I'm following this, but I'm guessing there are
> two cases. I'll just use BY-NC and BY-SA as the example licenses, but
> other obvious ones could be subbed in.
You are most certainly not following it. Neither of your points touches on the
problem in the top paragraph.
The problem is that I can make an adaptation of a BY-NC work and offer it
under All Rights Reserved. No one gets any of the joy CC purports to bring in
any of the license. (This covers the ones I like and the ones I don't.)
BY-NC-SA at least keeps all of the adaptations within the currently (to my
view overly) large CC umbrella.
Does that make the issue clearer?
The point of BY-NC-SA "looking" copyleft but not being "copyleft" is a strong
one. If it cannot be combated in another way, I would favour dropping
BY-NC-SA and keeping BY-NC (actually, as you know, I favour dropping all NC
and ND but I don't want to fight that battle here) on that basis alone.
all the best,
More information about the cc-community