Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Mia Garlick <mia AT creativecommons.org>]

hey jonathan,

On Mar 7, 2006, at 3:41 PM, Jonathon Blake wrote:

> Rob wrote:
>
> > I think that the CC NC guidelines are very good, and I'm very glad  
> > CC are producing them.
>
> They are slightly clearer than the "old" guidelines".

what are the "old" guidelines?

> The three issues I have with them are:
> i) A. (1.)  (c) defines "allowable NC User" as a non-profit
> organization.  The footnotes specifies IRS 501(c)(3), and then tosses
> out six of the ten types of groups.

i attempted to respond to your earlier comments on this in this  
posting: https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/cc-licenses/2006-March/ 
003308.html which was a bit long so let me recap:

as regards excluding religious organizations given the US definition  
of a not for profit org excludes  political organizations, the  
thinking was that there are three things one should not talk about in  
polite society - politics & religion being two of them. if the  
community believes that either or both political nonprofits &  
religious nonprofits should be able to use NC-licensed works, then
let's change the guidelines to reflect this.

the others were not referred to because they were so specific &  
arguable come within the category of being charitable orgs. but again  
- all this can be changed if the community feels necessary &  
appropriate....

> ii) D 1. (d) which allows an organization to "sell" material, as part
> of its membership drive.  I'm guessing that the idea here is that your
> local NPR affiliate can print out a book, and give away copies, during
> their begging for money week.   I can easily see happening, is that an
> organization prints up the material, and proceeds to "sell" it, under
> the guise of calling it a "membership" premium.   The shadier the
> organization, the more likely this is to occur.

so i also responded to this in the longer posting - short version:  
offering access to free content in exchange for premium membership  
renders access conditional upon payment, not optional & thus a breach.

> iii) An organization that does not have 501(3)(c) status with the IRS
> is automatically considered to be using it "commercially."  This
> effectively eliminates all usage of NC licenced material by government
> agencies.

the intent is not to focus on s501(3)(c) because these guidelines are  
intended to have global reach. we looked to that for guidance &  
welcome your suggestions & guidance in return. the point you raise  
about government usage is a good one. it's not an issue that i have  
seen discussed in conversations about noncommercial use - how should  
we deal with it?

> ###
>
> For all practical purposes, A. (1) (b) is a subset of A (1) (c), and
> can be deleted.
>
> xan
>
> jonathon
> --
> Ethical conduct is a vice.
> Corrupt conduct is a virtue.
>
> Motto of Nacarima.
> _______________________________________________
> cc-licenses mailing list
> cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses