Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-be - Re: [Cc-be] Clarity of Licence elements? (was: Very quick comments on CCs-[BE] and playground for other discussions.)

cc-be AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Creative Commons - Belgium

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Hannelore Dekeyser <hannelore.dekeyser AT law.kuleuven.ac.be>
  • To: cc-be AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [Cc-be] Clarity of Licence elements? (was: Very quick comments on CCs-[BE] and playground for other discussions.)
  • Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2004 11:45:52 +0100

Hi all,

I'm splitting my replies in different posts, because these are very
different discussions.

See comments inserted.

Alexandre Dulaunoy wrote:
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004, Hannelore Dekeyser wrote:


Alexandre Dulaunoy wrote:

Hi All,


[...]

CCs is a framework proposed to authors/creators to pick various
licenses by granting or revoking certains of their rights. It's
difficult to find exactly which licences can be considered as free[3]
as a large part is clearly non-free[4] but proposes a clarification of
old classical approach (e.g. : No Derivative and/or No Commercial is a
clarification of the old proprietary concept "Shareware").

[BE/Global] CCs should use a clear terminology when using
"free"/libre/vrij terms. Are the proposed licenses free or not ? an
update to the existing could be a good way.


In my opinion, Commercial of Non-Commercial, Derivatives or
No-Derivatives, Share-Alike or Freeride is pretty clear.


I don't think so. e.g. : Non-Commercial/Non-Derivative is clearly the
old concept of proprietary shareware with a new terminology. But a lot
of people are using NC without seeing the clear
implication. Non-Commercial distribution is a fuzzy concept.



I'm not convinced the terms 'proprietory', 'shareware' or 'freeware' are
any more clear. Each author can write his own licence. The labels
'shareware' and 'freeware' are applied by third parties (for instance
site editors that link to the software), these are categories with fuzzy
boundaries as well.
The advantage of the CCPL is that the terms
Non-Commercial/Non-Derivative etc have a well-defined meaning. The
definition is the same for all works under this licence.

Is Internet Explorer freeware? or shareware? You could probably argument
both ways.

Can you give an example of confusion caused by the terms
Non-Commercial/Non Derivative?
Do you mean: "Is use by a non-profit organisation commercial use?"

This is a valid question, but you could ask the same question in case
the work is freeware or shareware.



CCs are here to simplify the work of the authors/creators to choose a
"license" without too much legal complexity and to limit the number of
works with no exclusive rights open (default rule of copyrights).


In this respect, the licence is also intended to simplify life for users
of the work. Can I reuse it or not? Under which conditions?

Hannelore
--
Hannelore Dekeyser
Interdisciplinary Centre for Law and Information Technology
Website: http://www.law.kuleuven.ac.be/icri





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page