development of an education license or license option for Creative Commons

[David Wiley <david.wiley AT gmail.com>]

On Apr 6, 2005 12:25 AM, Chris Lott <chris.lott AT gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 5, 2005 5:46 PM, Mia Garlick <mia AT creativecommons.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Just to clarify a topic that has been the subject of some discussion on 
> > this
> > list over recent days - the intended meaning of non-commercial as drafted 
> > in
> > the CC-NC licenses is any use in a for-profit environment.  The drafting 
> > of
> > the license was intended to avoid any distinctions based on whether money
> > changed hands or a profit was actually made.  The relevant factor to
> > consider is whether the entity making use of the work has profit as its
> > primary motive.
> >
> > Hope this clarifies things rather than raises more questions!
> 
> Not really, since this is what Stephen Downes already said which
> prompted the original question. So, is the "primary motive" of
> University of Phoenix (which has been part of the discussions here) to
> make a profit?

Actually, it should clarify it a great deal, since Stephen's response
was a non-lawyer's opinion and Mia's response is Creative Commons
General Counsel's interpretation of the language. As pointed out in
Karen's response, determining whether or not an organization is
for-profit or not is a rather straightforward process.

I sincerely hope that the official word from one of Creative Commons'
own lawyers will wind down the "what does NC mean?" part of our
conversation.

D