[cc-licenses] Yet more on NC

drew Roberts zotz at 100jamz.com
Thu Oct 12 15:53:17 EDT 2006

On Thursday 12 October 2006 11:57 am, Discussion on the Creative Commons 
license drafts wrote:
> Henri wrote:
> > I don't really know the details, but my understanding has been that
> > the KJV is in the Public Domain outside the U.K. (at least outside
> Pre-WIPO, that would have been the case.  Post-WIPO, there is an
> obligation on the part of each signatory to honour the copyright on
> publications in the other signatories.   Whether or not the Crown will
> seek to enforce its copyright outside of the British Commonwealth is a
> currently unanswerable question.

This should be just as interesting or more interesting when it comes to the 
law which I am told the US will not recognize copyrights on. My country on 
the other hand considers the laws copyrighted. I often wonder if this will 
ever lead to ignorance of the law becomming a valid excuse..

Plus, are you sure it actually works like that? I can't imagine Australians 
paying the person in the US who claims to own the copyright on "Waltzing 
Matilda" everytime the song is played down under...
> > The conclusion I draw is that they should be wanting a Bible
> > translation and hymns that are Free as in Free Software--not NC. In
> +1
> > gathering that don't follow the format of a service. I assume there's
> > a lot of "don't ask, don't tell" going on. (There are virtually no PD
> Probably true throughout the world.
>  >>enough people to take off
> >
> > Do you have any guess whether this is due to lack of interest or due
> > to a perception of unfairness (due to lack of Free as in Free
> That is hard to say.
> * I'm not sure that libre / copyleft has touched the radar of the
> contributors to the various religious projects. [ For software, e-Sword
> ( gratis, not libre ) has as large, if not larger user base as the Sword
> project ( GNU GPL ). <The Sword Project doesn't publicize the number of
> downloads. e-Sword periodically announces the number of downloads. IIRC,
> they hit 4 million downloads last year.><Commercial Bible Study Program
> creators use e-Sword, rather than The Sword Project as a bargaining chip
> when dealing with royalties.>]
> * The JW Bible Study program < YRR > includes in its EULA a clause that
> prohibits it from being distributed to individuals who are not JWs.
> (That did not prevent somebody from offering the ISO image over the
> internet. <I guess they didn't like the "your rights removed" EULA>)
> * The projects that potentially have the most to gain from using a
> copyleft licence, typically face the more critical issue of finding
> people qualified to translate material into English, or other modern
> language, from the Koine Greek / Aramaic / Aramaic / Hieroglyphics /
> Ancient Chinese / Sanskrit / Pali / other original language.
> * Projects that collect material, typically only include public domain
> material.  [Sacred-Texts.com is probably the best known religious
> orientated example. It does include some "orphaned material" from the
> days of _FIDO Net_, _PODS_, and maybe even _The Source_.]
> * The commentaries for Christian material usually have a very specific
> theological POV. Whilst people who do not adhere to that theological POV
> can contribute, they are on notice that their material might be deleted,
> purely on doctrinal grounds.
> * Doctrinal issues appear to be more significant that gratis/libre
> issues. [At least one collaborative project has forked because of
> doctrinal issues. Both forks later collapsed.]
> * About the only consistent pattern, is that if there is no organization
> behind a collaborative project, it won't attract enough people to
> sustain itself when the founder departs from the scene.
> > To me, it seems that NC is such a lost opportunity for Free Culture (as
> > in Free Software)
> >
>  > that it is a shame if CC-by-sa isn't even tried first.
> CC-BY-NC-SA is perceptually less scarier that CC-BY-SA.

It scares me more, not less.
> >> The Red Cross can use it in a course, but the Salvation Army can not use
> >> it, even if teaching the same course, using the same instructor.]
> >
> > This should ring major alarm bells that NC is a bug in CC!
> People are learning what a commons is. For an organization that
> understands the concept of "gratis", the concept of "libre" is unknown.

Give them a clue:

"And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free."

I would take a guess that that is talking libre and not gratis.
> Did Creative Commons err in creating the NC licence?  Possibly.  People
> who understand "gratis", but not "libre" would have looked at said "What
> none of these licences are 'gratis'?"
> [Creative commons did err in not including a definition of both
> "commercial", and "non-commercial" in the licence.]
> >>> I find it strange that MIT is pushing NC and all the ambiguity it
> >>
> >> For MIT, NC makes perfect sense.
> >
> > It doesn't. They don't get the network benefits from combining their
> > works and Free as in Free Software copylefted works produced by others.
> I didn't think of it yesterday, but "Moral Rights" is probably more of
> an issue with them, that Collaborative Rights.  ND covers Moral Rights
> better than NC, though. OTOH, brand name/image isn't covered by ND, but
> is by NC.

I don't follow this... but, if you want branding, think about trademarks.
> > As far as branding goes, NC in more harmful than ARR to Free Culture
> > (as in Free Software) and a true creative commons, because it allows
> > people to get the branding benefits of CC without actually benefiting
> > Free Culture (as in Free Software) or a creative commons.
> >
> > So is NC in your opinion diabolical?
> No.  "Diabolical" refers to the fact that your local school district,
> can't use this material, unless they pay MIT a royalty. Your local
> private school might be able to use the material, without paying
> royalties. This simply increases the gulf between public education, and
> private education.
> >> Something that addresses the specific needs and concerns of those
> >> organizations.
> >
> > That would make the situation only worse by putting CC deeper into
> > the non-free boutique license quagmire instead of repositioning CC as
> CC is trying to offer licences that are:
> * gratis ( NC-SA / NC-ND )
> * libre ( SA )
> * gratis and libre ( BY-SA / BY-NC-SA / Developing Nations )
> ND doesn't fit into that breakdown.

ND can be gratis. NC isn't sure to be in the first instance.

Developing Nations is not libre.

> I'm not sure how the Sampling licence fits into that mix. [This is a
> licence selected by default, and not because it is the best for the
> proposed use.]

It has been a while, but I took the sampling licenses to be attempts at "fair 
> 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