Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Jonathon Blake <jonathon.blake AT gmail.com>]

On 12/5/05, phyllostachys nuda  wrote:

> It means you start simple and work through the murky details one by one.

_All_ details are murky, until, and unless they are clearly and
explicitly defined, as part of the contract that they are used in.

> Furthermore, 'user interpretation' is not the issue here,

It is.  If the licence does not clearly and explicitly define _every_
term, and what that means legally, it is going to be ambiguous, and
subject to "user interpretation".

To go back to the "CC NC" licence.

"The licensor permits others to copy, distribute, display, and perform
the work. In return, licensees may not use the work for commercial
purposes -- unless they get the licensor's permission."

The key phrase here is "commercial purposes".

Section 2.4 of the FAQ attempts to explain "commercial"
It states that file-sharing, amongst two or three activities, are
"non-commercial", even though US Law defines "file sharing" as
"commercial".

What other things that could be construed as "commercial", are
"non-commercial"?  More importantly, what things that could be thought
of as "non-commercial", are going to be construed as "commercial"?

None of the CC NC licences clearly define "for commercial advantage",
or related terms.

Is a church choir that performs a song with an NC licence doing so
"for commercial advantage"?
If tickets are being sold, then the answer is probably "yes".

But does passing the collection plate turn it into "for commercial advantage"?
Messianic Christianity would say "yes".
Evangelical Christianity probably would say "no".
Prosperity Christianity would say "hell, no."

> The primary person who gets to decide what is appropriate and inappropriate 
> is the person who creates the work that is under a human rights-type of 
> license.

I'll go back to the "not to be used for making weapons" as a
sub-category of a "human-rights-type" of licence.

How, and where do you define "weapon"?
I have a Shurakin welded onto a necklace.  Airport security in 1986
declared that to be "a lethal weapon".   I purchased and wore it as
"costume jewelry".  The person who sold it, sold it as "costume
jewelry".

Is what I wore "a lethal weapon" or "costume jewelry"? Both? Neither?

> The user is supposed to abide by those rules.

Do you seriously expect a user to abide by, and understand a "human
rights" type licence, when the potential for misunderstanding is
infinite, and the potential for understanding is zero?

The only difference between a nova, and a nuclear weapon blast, is
that the former _currently_ has much more fuel to expend.

xan

jonathon
--
This is our sandbox and if we want to throw sand we can