Development of Creative Commons licenses

["Greg London" <email AT greglondon.com>]

Margaretha Haughwout said:
> i am about to release an audio magazine in which i have everyone's full
> consent for remixing their work.

full consent for any use? then why restrict it to NonCommercial only?

> i'd like to use a (CC) license,
> but i'm not sure if i can
> since this is a commercial enterprise

What is "this" that is a commercial enterprise???
Your distribution? Your employer? CreativeCommons?

> and it's not my work originally.

But you have full consent of all the original Authors, right?

> can i use for non commercial use only?

CC-NonCommercial, but why the restriction if you have full consent?

> i don't want to allow for anyone else to use the artists'
> work commercially, and i'm sure, neither do they.

so, what you're saying is that when you asked the original
authors for their "full consent", you did not clarify with
them if commercial use was OK.

why is commercial use a problem with your project?

tens of thousands of programmers contributed their code
to Linux for free, and RedHat is selling distributions
for money. You can download linux for free, but if you
want, you can pay RedHat for an installation CD.

wikipedia has a quarter-million encyclopedia entries
that have been contributed by a similar number of
people for free. If EncyclopediaBrittanica wanted to
print hardcopies and sell them they could. You can
still go to www.wikipedia.com and use it for free,
or you can pay someone to print a hardcopy.

Are you contributing a work to the Public?
or are you trying to generate Free Advertising
for your artists?

If you're contributing the work, then restrictions
against commercial use is needless. Linux, in part,
has become as big as it is because of companies like
RedHat.

-- 
Draft the Gift Domain:
Put Free/Libre/Open/Public licensing
concepts directly into Copyright Law.
http://www.greglondon.com/dtgd/html/draftingthegiftdomain.html