[cc-community] Why it is not a good idea to discourage CC-NC or CC-ND
williamgeorgebrowne at gmail.com
Tue Dec 20 20:57:27 EST 2011
Hey Anthony and Heather,
> Comment: in some cases, this may be absolutely correct. On the other
hand, if an author or publisher wishing (or needing) to earn
> money from a book is discouraged from using CC-NC, I suspect that many
would choose All Rights Reserved rather than CC-BY or CC-
That's certainly true. I was talking specifically about authors or
publishers mistakenly thinking that all CC licences are 'open source' or
'free'; they should be discouraged from wrongly thinking that. If that
discouragement means they reject the CC NC licence in favour of a libre
one, that's ideal. If they don't think it's worth choosing a CC NC licence
without the drawcard of open source/freedom, then at least they haven't
made that choice in ignorance.
> How is CC-NC any better than ARR? If the publisher wants to
> distribute pdf copies free of charge, they're still going to do so,
> whether it's under CC-NC or under ARR.
CC NC is a lot better than ARR!
1) The publisher is not the only one who can distribute copies free of
charge. If the publisher shuts down, loses interest in the book, etc.,
others can continue circulating a CC NC PDF but not an ARR one.
2) Others can adapt the CC NC work but no the ARR one.
> If CC-ND is discouraged, people will just switch to a DIY version of
> CC-ND ("you may copy and redistribute this work so long as you do not
> modify it").
Or they will not think to grant those permissions at all, or they will
grant them in a more limited fashion (the most common ND DIY declaration is
not "you may copy and redistribute this work so long as ...", it is "you
may copy and redistribute this work for noncommercial purposes so long as
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the cc-community