Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - Re: Questions Regarding CCL Non-Commercial

cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Rob Myers <robmyers AT mac.com>
  • To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: Questions Regarding CCL Non-Commercial
  • Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2005 12:27:15 +0000

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.




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page