[cc-licenses] CC licenses version 4.0: some thoughts on noncommercial
zotz at 100jamz.com
Sat Dec 24 12:58:40 EST 2011
On Friday 23 December 2011 12:50:14 Rob Myers wrote:
> On 22/12/11 17:27, drew Roberts wrote:
> > On Wednesday 21 December 2011 13:07:17 Heather Morrison wrote:
> >> Another example is my own blog, which is licensed CC-BY-NC-SA. At this
> >> point in time, I am fortunate enough to have a full-time job and no need
> >> to make money from this blog. However, in this world there are no
> >> guarantees for any of us, and if at some point I needed money, I would
> >> be very glad that I did reserve rights to sales of my work. If I were to
> >> change the license to CC-BY,
> > Again, forget BY, use BY-SA if you are going Free, protect the Freedom of
> > your works for others as well as yourself.
> There seems to be a false dichtomoy between BY and NC-SA in discussions
> of Open Access at the moment.
My gut tells me that one possible reason could be that people who love
copyright and the power it gives them over others fear a copyleft protected
Freedom. They don't want to see a vibrant commons develop that they cannot
enclose at will.
> BY-SA builds and protects a commons. Neither BY (an unmanaged commons)
> nor NC-SA (an allotment) do.
They want BY-NC or BY-NC-SA for their own stuff (or even ARR) so they can try
and stop others from making a buck unless they get a cut. They like BY for
other people's stuff as they can raid that at will. CC0 is likely cool with
them for other people's stuff I guess.
I note too recent increase in the noise in the market pointing to the GPL's
decline in favour of permissive Free licenses in the code realm.
> - Rob.
all the best,
More information about the cc-licenses