Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

On Monday 06 March 2006 05:34 pm, Mia Garlick wrote:
> but for the purposes of determining whether a use is commercial or
> not, isn't whether the org is established for the purpose of making
> money or not, the only relevant question in answering that question?

I don't see why. We know people have to make money to live. Do we say that 
anyone with an income is not qualified to use NC licenced works? Anyone whose 
income exceeds his expenses? Anyone not bankrupt?

Why is it not properly the act only that counts?

all the best,

drew
>
> On Mar 6, 2006, at 2:25 PM, drew Roberts wrote:
> > Well,
> >
> > a corporation can be established for other purposes though.
> >
> > all the best,
> >
> > drew
> >
> > On Monday 06 March 2006 05:13 pm, Mia Garlick wrote:
> >> what do you mean the definition does not match with reality?
> >>
> >> an organization that is established for the purpose of making a
> >> profit has, as adam stated, the objective of making money & thus
> >> everything it does must be assumed ultimately to be connected with a
> >> money-making purpose. even if it offers something for free it is
> >> doing so to increase it's brand and to cultivate favorable PR...for
> >> the purpose of making money.
> >>
> >> what would be an alternate definition?
> >>
> >> On Mar 6, 2006, at 2:07 PM, drew Roberts wrote:
> >>> On Monday 06 March 2006 04:44 pm, Adam Fields wrote:
> >>>> On Mon, Mar 06, 2006 at 04:35:53PM -0500, drew Roberts wrote:
> >>>> [...]
> >>>>
> >>>>>>> so far there have been 2 comments on these.  if you think the
> >>>>>>> definition is too vague & CC should do something to clarify it -
> >>>>>>> let's discuss these guidelines!!!
> >>>>>
> >>>>> OK, I never before understood that a for profit could never
> >>>>> properly use
> >>>>> an NC work. Since I read the pdf, I cannot tell you how many
> >>>>> people I
> >>>>> have come across who see things as I did. (oops, responding in
> >>>>> the wrong
> >>>>> post.)
> >>>>
> >>>> Curious. Why is that not evident? By definition, everything a
> >>>> for-profit corporation does is commercial.
> >>>
> >>> Perhaps, but definition does not always match with reality. Should
> >>> we always
> >>> go with definition?
> >>>
> >>> all the best,
> >>>
> >>> drew
> >>> --
> >>> http://www.ourmedia.org/node/145261
> >>> Record a song and you might win $1,000.00
> >>> http://www.ourmedia.org/user/17145
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> cc-licenses mailing list
> >>> cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
> >>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> cc-licenses mailing list
> >> cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
> >> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses
> >
> > --
> > http://www.ourmedia.org/node/145261
> > Record a song and you might win $1,000.00
> > http://www.ourmedia.org/user/17145
> > _______________________________________________
> > cc-licenses mailing list
> > cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
> > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses
>
> _______________________________________________
> cc-licenses mailing list
> cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses

-- 
http://www.ourmedia.org/node/145261
Record a song and you might win $1,000.00
http://www.ourmedia.org/user/17145