Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - Re: [cc-licenses] Version 3.0 -- It's Happening & With BY-SA CompatibilityLanguageToo

cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Jonathon Blake" <jonathon.blake AT gmail.com>
  • To: "Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts" <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] Version 3.0 -- It's Happening & With BY-SA CompatibilityLanguageToo
  • Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 02:40:06 +0000

Drew wrote:

> 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... ?

I've seen scripts for plays, and scores for music with that licence.
I'm fairly confident that the person who used that licence has no idea
what it allows,and what it prohibits.

A bit off topic here... Is it legal for a for profit entity to download NC
documents off of web sites?

Technically, no.

My initial thought was, it must be, after all it is legal to download "all
rights reserved" documents off of web sites.

CC-NC is a EULA. As such, it is technically _more_ restrictive than
ARR would be.

Finding an NC document though? Here we have an up front notice that for profit
entities / uses are not allowed.
Is this crazy?

No. It plainly identifies the EULA that the material is distributed under.

It does illustrate why the NC is not a "Free" licence.

> The other NC variants can be called _The Free Non Commercial Licence_.

Since this one would not pass the tests you point to above, I would suggest
the word free not come into the name if we want to avoid confusion along

I thought up the names on the spur of the moment. _The Gratis
Licence_ would be a more appropriate name.

Do we need to bite the bullet and start using libre and gratis more?

Probably. I meant "free" qua "gratis" in _Free Non Commercial_.
Obviously thaat name is bad, if people think "libre" as opposed to
"gratis".

. I am not convinced that the CC umbrella brand is a necessarily hurtful thing
if there were to be a clear distinction between the Free and non-Free
licenses. The association under the one umbrella might serve as an
introduction / stepping stone.

If the CC umbrella is used, then the licences have to have names that
are even more distinctive than I used.

Brand names are useful --- until they are extended. Then the
extensions kill the brand. [This can be clearly seen in the change in
market share during both the cola wars and the beer wars.]

I'd hazard that more people equate a CC licence with "no commercial
usage", than as a libre orientated licence.

xan

jonathon




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page