Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

On Tuesday 13 February 2007 08:44 pm, James Grimmelmann wrote:
> drew Roberts wrote:
> > On Tuesday 13 February 2007 07:56 pm, Jonathon Blake wrote:
> >> On 2/13/07, tomislav medak wrote:
> >>> first reason would be: how do you define 'free'?, or rather 'freedoms',
> >>> or 'free enough' to be called that. for instance, freedom to share
> >>> licensed works is given by all standard CC licenses and it is a
> >>> freedom.
> >>
> >> First, get rid of CC as a brand name. Keep the name for the
> >> organization, if you so desire.
> >>
> >> Debian Legal has a set of four definitions,and three tests that can be
> >> used to determine whether  or not something is "free". Anything which
> >> passes all of those criteria is "free".  Call that the _Free Content
> >> Licence_.
> >>
> >> The BY and BY-SA variants can be called the _Free Authors Licence_.
> >>
> >> BY-NC-ND can be relabelled as _The Usage is Banned Licence_
> >
> > Not so sure this description fits. You can "use" such a book to read or
> > as a door stop... ?
> >
> > A bit off topic here... Is it legal for a for profit entity to download
> > NC documents off of web sites?
>
> Under step 1 of the draft NC guidelines, no.

Care to give a step by step explanation of where copyright would be violated?

In a download situation, who makes the copy? The person with the web server, 
or the person with the web browser? Both?
>
> James

all the best,

drew
-- 
(da idea man)