Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Mia Garlick <mia AT creativecommons.org>]

just to clarify on the issue of whether religious organizations can  
use NC material consistent with the NC clause.  the initial draft of  
the guidelines did question whether to exclude religious  
organizations (it didn't say that they necessarily were) but (a)  
there was some challenge to this on this list (b) this was final (c)  
from the general feedback i'm getting, it probably makes no sense to  
exclude them.

in any event, the guidelines are in discussion draft format.  the  
person who gets to decide who can use NC materials is the licensor  
who chooses the NC license condition.

On Dec 6, 2006, at 3:31 PM, drew Roberts wrote:

> On Wednesday 06 December 2006 06:03 pm, James Grimmelmann wrote:
> > drew Roberts wrote:
> > > On Monday 04 December 2006 10:12 pm, Greg London wrote:
> > > > Any word from Creative Commons about changing
> > > > the basic CC-Attribution license so that it allows DRM?
> > > >
> > > > Since CC-BY allows proprietary forking,
> > > > I see no reason to disallow proprietary DRM.
> > >
> > > There is a reason though in that it would allow the restrictions  
> > > on the
> > > original works as well as the derivatives. Certainly no reason  
> > > not to
> > > allow it for derivatives. Unless someone really is out to use CC  
> > > as a
> > > weapon against DRM. I seem to be the only one who might be cool  
> > > with that
> > > thought.
> > >
> > > No reason not to allow it on NC works either as DRM-Dave will not  
> > > be able
> > > to work his monopoly-fu because of the NC clause.
> >
> > I disagree.  NC isn't always a substitute for an anti-DRM clause.
> >
> > It may be more a theoretical than a practical possibility, but I  
> > can at
> > least imagine a DRM Dave who acts wholly non-commercially.  Maybe a
> > religious organization that wants to use DRM to prevent people of  
> > other
> > religions from reading or distorting their texts, or some such.
>
> Sorry to post this on-list, but hasn't it been pointed out here on  
> a cc list
> without contradiction that religious organizations are not  
> considered NC for
> the purposes of the NC clause?
>
> If they did not want distorting, ND would fit the bill. No?
>
> Also, please, if it were their own texts, they could do what they  
> like no
> matter what the CC license says.
>
> If DRM Dave makes an entirely original work, are you putting  
> forward that the
> wording of the CC licenses would prevent him from doing as he  
> wishes with his
> own works if he released them under a CC license?
>
> Input from a CC lawyer would be appreciated on this question if  
> James says
> yes.
>
> > James
>
> all the best,
>
> drew
> --
> (da idea man)
> National Novel Writing Month
> Sayings (Winner 2006)
> http://www.ourmedia.org/node/262954
> _______________________________________________
> cc-licenses mailing list
> cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses