osm at inbox.org
Mon Dec 19 23:33:16 EST 2011
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 7:06 PM, Mike Linksvayer <ml at creativecommons.org> wrote:
> contributing to a commons
What's the difference between BY-NC and BY-NC-ND? You can use BY-NC
in a completely proprietary (ARR) work. So far as I can tell, you
*cannot* use it in a BY-SA work (because if you did, that work would
no longer be BY-SA). So how is BY-NC any "less problematic in terms
of usefully contributing to a commons" than BY-NC-ND?
> * Dropping both would simplify the suite in a way that other was of
> slicing things wouldn't -- no "three element" licenses would remain,
> facilitating new interfaces and explanations that can really focus on
> the choice among NC, ND, and SA (or of course plain CC BY).
Well, I guess I can support that, as the case for dropping NC once the
choices are down to BY, BY-SA, BY-ND, and BY-NC becomes so much
clearer. (Cue the song "one of these things is not like the other".)
> * BY-NC-SA is still the 2nd most popular license, so even though I
> think it is usually not the best choice, fully dropping it would not
> be exactly cool;
That's why step 1 is to show that the people choosing BY-NC-SA don't
understand what it is they're choosing. :)
Step 2 is to drop BY-NC-SA and BY-NC-ND.
And then step 3 is to sing "one of these things is not like the other"
and then drop BY-NC.
More information about the cc-community