Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - Re: [cc-licenses] Version 3.0 - Revised License Drafts

cc-licenses AT

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Mia Garlick <mia AT>
  • To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts <cc-licenses AT>
  • Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] Version 3.0 - Revised License Drafts
  • Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2006 10:12:37 -0800

actually, at the risk of starting the NonCommercial discussion again (which has already been extensively debated on the list if you review the archives) and is not part of the Version 3.0 discussion (to which your email was sent in reply) what NC means depends on the intention of the licensor when applying the license condition to their work. CC has a discussion draft of NonCommercial Guidelines in an effort to clarify what the term means (see NonCommercial_Guidelines); *such* Guidelines are, as the name suggests, not finalized or definitive however, they do not make a distinction based on whether the ads are used to pay just for bandwidth or not.

On Nov 1, 2006, at 6:34 AM, Pascal Muller wrote:

On 11/1/06, Jim Sowers <jim AT> wrote:

Q: Does taking content that has a non-commercial restriction and using on a website that runs AdSense violate the non-comm. restriction? Assume that the primary driver of traffic is the use of CC licensed content?

The language in the license in 4 (c) is: "You may not exercise any of the rights granted to You in Section 3 above
in any manner that is primarily intended for or directed toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation."

Seems like this could cover a lot of AdSense-based sites. Just wondering what the current thinking is on this.

If those ads are to pay exclusively for the bandwidth bill, and not to make a profit out of it, I guess it's allowed, because it isn't cial advantage in that case..

Pascal Muller
cc-licenses mailing list
cc-licenses AT

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page