Development of Creative Commons licenses

[drew Roberts <zotz AT 100jamz.com>]

On Wednesday 06 April 2005 03:42 pm, Greg London wrote:
> I dunno. That message I sent out earlier was the full
> text from CC's lawyer. That's all there was from CC.

One of the reasons I don't like NC as I have previously understood it is that 
non-commercial is way too broad as I understand it can be applied in relation 
to copyright. (I think you could even fail the test if you make copies at no 
charge for a friend with the expectation that they will do the same for you 
in return.)

There does need to be some better way to express NC, but I don't know if it 
going to be possible.
>
> I think they're redefining "non-commercial"
> to mean "non-profit" so that university professors
> can get paid a salary,
> charge students tuition,
> charge them for books,
> and claim its all non-profit.
>
> But a consulting company that is a for-profit corporation
> will not be allowed. The professors don't want their
> work spoiled by money. Unless the money is coming to them.
>
> Nice little racket.

Should be pretty easy to get in on the racket if it ends up allowing all uses 
by all non-profits or as we tend to call them here NGOs. Just find one and 
cut a deal. Use the works how you want, pay yourself you agreed hourly rate 
out of the proceeds, turn the difference over to the non-profit.

Bam sookey! You're golden.

all the best,

drew