[cc-licenses] New Generic and ports

drew Roberts zotz at 100jamz.com
Tue Oct 10 06:59:27 EDT 2006

On Tuesday 10 October 2006 02:39 am, Jonathon Blake wrote:
> Drew wrote:
> >> The issue with the By-SA licence in this situation, is that the
> >> organization is literally cutting off their oxygen supply.  If they
> >
> > That is far from proven. Perhaps they need a bit more faith?
> Because of a faulty copyright filing Charles Sheldon's _In His Steps_
> entered the public domain as soon as it was published.  As a result he
> received nothing in the way of royalties, or payments in lieu of
> royalties.  Every Christian organization since then has pondered upon
> that experience when deciding upon its licensing and royalties policy.

So? You don't want to freely share the message. You don't want to freely share 
the good news?

Jonathon, I don't mean to be rude, but I think you are being inconsistent with 
some of your answers below and I will try and point some instances out and I 
ask that you think about it for a bit.
> I'll grant that software is not the same as published material, but
> the example here is e-Sword, which is free (as in beer) has had more
> downloads, than copies of Libronix, QuickVerse, BibleWorks, and
> WordSearch combined have been sold, all of which are commercial
> programs.  The revenue that e-Sword has generated since it was created
> is less than the revenue any of those companies earn in a year.  As an
> aside, I'll point out that Libronix originally was shareware, but that
> revenue model didn't generate the income needed for their royalty
> payments.

Here, it seems getting more revenue is an important part of the argument.
> > And how may are  going to take their brothers to court over the matter of
> > copyright violation?
> One organization has a policy of using your local process server as
> your first notification of a possible copyright violation. Several
> others are well known for their enforcement of alleged copyright
> infringement. [Whilst they might not sue because you quoted 101
> verses, rather than 100 verses in your sermon, they will send you a
> warning letter if they find out about it. Repeat offenders will be
> sued.]

Right, so presumably they have to be willing to take their brothers to court?
> >> The CC-NC licence _appears_ to fit  that bill.
> >
> > Yes, it does. (Except for the NC confusion issue.)
> Ideally, the NC licence would contain a clause that defines the terms
> "commercial" and "non-commercial".

That makes some sense and I think they are trying, but we will see how well it 
pleases everyone. Plus, just recently here on one of the CC lists someone has 
pointed out that the judge may apply the thinking of the licensor as to what 
is non-commercial and that it doesn't matter what CC thinks as they are not a 
party to the matter.
> >> I think people are treating it as "Better Copyright Options",
> >
> > Yes, they do, but it still does not make for a creative commons.
> True, especially when somebody distributes a play under an NC licence.
> [One has to wonder what the playwright was thinking, by using an NC
> licence.]
> > So far I haven't heard a peep from anyone. (Unless I missed it or
> > promptly
> Something like that will evolve when people figure out what a creative
> commons for _text_ means. The best current example is Wikipedia, and
> its relatives.
> Rob wrote:
> >It also works against you making money from end users of your
> own work, as you have already released your own work for free.
> The theory is that the hard copy can be released under "All Rights
> reserved", and the e-text under an NC licence of one flavour or
> another.  This is based upon the experience of commercial publishers
> --- releasing some content in e-text format increases sales of the
> hard copy.

It seems this theory is flawed if what has been explained to me on these lists 
is so as I wanted to apply a wrinkle of this thinking to my photographs and 
it was explained that the license is for the work, not for a particular 
instance of the work.
> >With BY-SA you can at least exploit downstream derivative work. This
> may be more protection than NC-SA, as people will understand that they
> have to give back.
> Copy edits and translations are probably the only significant
> derivatives for text.
> My personal experience has been more of both of those for the
> CC-BY-NC-SA than the CC-BY-SA licenced material.
> >But neither license is a good fit for a borderline viable royalty-based
> business. The business would need to switch to a different revenue model.
> For non-profits, the revenue model is not the primary function.
> My sense is that most organizations that us the NC licence are either
> non-profits, or else are releasing material that would not otherwise
> be released by them.

Inconsistent. here, revenue seems unimportant.
> Henri wrote:
> >FWIW, every time I have had income from writing software, I have
> stood on the shoulders of Free Software authors (regardless of
> whether the software I have written has been Free or proprietary--I
> There are two major difference between writing software, and writing a
> document. * Software can, and routinely  contain routines, or algorithms
> that can be reused in a completly different work. That typically doesn't
> occur in text.

If it doesn't typically happen, there is nothing to be lost in allowing it.

> * Software support can generate revenue.  That doesn't exist for text.
> > NC prevents others from building business on what is potential usefulness
> > for others but unused surplus for the licensor--or any attempt
> > degenerates to the permission culture.
> I haven't done a survey of the type of material that is slapped with
> an NC licence.  Most of what I've seen has either been educational, or
> religious orientated.  In both instances,
> the only restriction is selling the derivative product --- if there is one.

You just posited that derivative products are not typically made with respect 
to text.
> > CC-BY-SA is also better for you in the sense that if someone else
> modifies your work, his/her NC doesn't take away *your* possibility
> of making money if you figure out a business model.
> You are assuming that income generation is the driving force behind
> the selection of the NC licence.  I'm not convinced that it is.  For
> both educational and religious material, the driving force is to
> maximize the distribution, at the lowest cost to the original author,
> and the end user.  

BY-SA would be perfect for this. If not, why not? It does not cost me much to 
put my BY-SA book up on ourmedia.org who stores it it the internet archive:


How much does it cost someone to get it?

> [This gets back to the dual licence: "All Rights 
> Reserved" for the hard copy, and "NC" for the e-text.]

Which isn't gonna work in CC land it seems.
> Drew wrote:
> >Plus, all those people who might spread your reputation while trying to
> > make
> some money for themselves will pass on your NC work and may promote my
> BY-SA work instead.
> This depends upon the subject of the material.  For music, your
> promotion may make a difference.  For a commentary on _The Gospel of
> Judas of Keiroth_, the insight it provides are going to be more
> important than the licence.

And how is a more restrictive license supposed to help spread this insight?
> > I know this might be stupid on my part when it comes to plain ND works as
> > I could sell them,
> ND is as restrictive as NC, perhaps more so.

It is more restrictive of ideas, less of commerce.

So, to sum up:

Is it important for these NC users to insure their revenue stream? Or is it 
more important to get their message out? I think you are inconsistent on this 
in your different points.

Do people re-use text, or don't they? Some places you say they don't, other 
places it seems you indicate that it will be a problem that they can.
> xan
> jonathon

all the best,

(da idea man)
National Novel Writing Month
Join me and write a novel in 30 days! Dont delay!

More information about the cc-licenses mailing list