[cc-licenses] Time limited CC licenses for version 4.0?

Andrew McNicol andrew at exhipigeonist.net
Thu Dec 22 16:09:45 EST 2011

> From: Gregor Hagedorn <g.m.hagedorn at gmail.com>
> Subject: [cc-licenses] Time limited CC licenses for version 4.0?

My personal preference would be to make the the NC license even more
> strict, thus clarifying the current disadvantages ambiguity (many
> licensors are willing to give generously, but licensees are unable to
> take it, risk management requires them to choose the most conservative
> interpretation), but counter that by making it ONLY available in time
> limited versions, like:
> NC2013
> NC2020
> NC2025
> where the number indicates the year in which the NC license will be
> voided, reverting the licences to one without the NC clause.
> In addition, the license text might specify that the maximum duration
> of an NC license is 25 years, even if a later years has been
> accidentially named.

Not a bad idea, though I'm not entirely sold on it yet.  But I just wanted
to add a few practical remarks.

There are many cases (I'm thinking websites in particular) where an author
lists their CC license in a single location, such as the side panel of a
blog using a CMS.  In these cases it may be difficult to implement this the
way you suggest.  NC2013 would appear to be applicable for all content,
from the earliest post from, say, eight years ago to one made yesterday.

An alternative is to declare the length of time rather than the year the
clause would end.  So, NC7 would mean all my work is under an NC license
until seven years after it's original publication.  This, of course, will
need to be used in tandem with clearly stated dates of publication, which I
believe is so in many cases, anyway.  And this is probably an easier
practice than to state individual licenses for every work.

I also feel the meaning of NC2013 is a little ambiguous.  Does it mean it's
no longer NC as of January 1 2013, or January 1 2014?  If I'm confused,
there are probably others out there who would be, too =)  My revision may
relieve this confusion.

So, if people support the idea of time limited NC licensing proposals, does
this sound like a better way to go about it?

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/attachments/20111223/2ee30574/attachment.html 

More information about the cc-licenses mailing list