[cc-licenses] NonDerivative NonCommercial Licenses

Ŭalabio‽ Walabio at MacOSX.COM
Fri Mar 3 20:30:15 EST 2006


	Re:	"Greg London" <Email at Greglondon.Com> & "Rob" <Rob at Robmyers.Org>:

	Greg London" <Email at Greglondon.Com>:

> 	CC-NC-ND would be a license you might use if you wanted fans to be  
> able to pass around your work as long as they didn't charge money  
> and didn't modify the work. So, CC-NC-ND has it's uses.  Yes, the  
> licenses generally become more restrictive as they combine, but  
> that's the side effect being tinkertoys.
	
> 	Greg

	Under no circumstances would I ever use such an abomination.  That  
is exactly the sort of license I want banned.  NC and ND is a  
necessary evil so that people like Corey can make a living, but  
people should have these three writes with CC-Licenses:

	0.	-	The right to share the work without restriction.
	1.	-	The right to read the work.
	2.	-	The right to modify the work at least noncomercially.

	ND for noncommercial forks violates number two.  I would limit ND to  
only commercial licenses and have it stated in licences with ND that  
the ND does _"*NOT_APPLY*"_ to noncommercial use.

	"Rob" <Rob at Robmyers.Org>:

> 	Quoting Greg London <email at greglondon.com>:

>> 	To suggest combining ShareAlike with NoDerivatives is a red flag  
>> that there is some kind of fundamental misunderstanding going on.   
>> And I can't quite figure out where it is.

> 	Yes I'm confused as well.

	It is quite simple:

	The conditions of the licenses are like ANDs and NOTs:

BY:
	AND

SA:
	AND

NC:
	NOT

ND:
	NOT

	If we limit ND to only commercial licenses and place in the text for  
ND that it only applies to commercial uses and is null and void for  
noncommercial uses, then it is is:

	"If commercial, then no derivatives.  ¡STOP!  If noncommercial allow  
derivatives and go onto next term if present."

	In other words, it means "If then".  Let us read the version three  
license CC-BY-ND-SA for commercial and noncommercial purposes:

	CC (LicenseType) BY (AND credit author(s)) ND (NOT allowed  
commercial derivatives.  ¡STOP!)  SA (halted at previous line)

	If I wanted to modify the work for noncommercial use such as  
education, the license would read thus:

	CC (LicenseType) BY (AND credit author(s)) ND (NOT allowed  
commercial derivatives, but this is noncommercial derivative so this  
line does not apply.  Go to next line.)  SA (AND share this work  
alike noncommercially).

	Basically, I believe that at the heart of all CC-Licenses, should be  
these freedoms:

	0.	-	The right to share the work without restriction.
	1.	-	The right to read the work.
	2.	-	The right to modify the work at least noncomercially.

	In accordance with these rights, ND should only be allowed with  
commercial licenses and simply not apply to noncommercial uses of  
commercially licensed works.  ¿Do you understand now?

	I would like to submit these ideas about inviolable rights which all  
CC-Licenses must uphold to Creative Commons.  ¿How do I do that?

	—

	Walabio


More information about the cc-licenses mailing list