Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Rob Myers <robmyers AT mac.com>]

Statement of Interest: I'm a registered Groklaw user.

On Thursday, January 06, 2005, at 03:19AM, nono2sco <nono2sco AT yahoo.com> 
wrote:

>Now the question that comes to mind is that if GrokLaw
>posts an article that affects the stock price, are we
>saying that a tiny unknown site that exists soley to
>let search engine bots be able to index PJ's CCL-ed
>articles is going to magnify that effect?  Especially
>when currently the latest article is from 12/31/2004?

It's not the magnitude, it's the intent. If the use of the licensed material 
is primarily directed towards financial gain, it's not covered by the 
license. 

>Since is there is only one person we know mirroring
>the articles and he happens to have a short interest
>in SCO stock (very carefully disclaimed on his
>website) doesn't this whole comment seem to be
>directed at that one person?  

Not really. They may or may not have been the first to raise the issue by 
their actions, but I can see how it could easily come up more often in future.

>[much snippage]

As I say, you can't add additional requirements to a CC license because it's 
meant to be the entire agreement. 

*But* having actually read Groklaw's t's & c's, the "additional requirement" 
seems to be simply a restating of one of the effects of the NC license: that 
you can't get financial benefit from using the licensed work.

So the "additional requirement" (para 4 sentence 4) and Groklaw's 
clarification of NC (para 4 sentence 7) mean that Groklaw's stated 
restrictions on using their content and the restrictions that the NC license 
imposes are not contradictory.

The *combined* effect of all this is that Groklaw aren't doing anything 
wrong, but it's good that they've clarified how their terms and NC's terms 
relate.

- Rob.