Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - Re: [cc-licenses] NC considered harmful? Prove it...

cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Antoine" <antoine AT pitrou.net>
  • To: "Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts" <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] NC considered harmful? Prove it...
  • Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2007 11:09:56 +0100 (CET)

> In
> other words, the claim is that they are either "do not produce a
> commons" or "produce an ineffective commons". This is mostly based on
> theory, though.
>
> Now I want to prove it. You know, with *evidence*. ;-)

You want (factual) evidence but (rational) proof is enough.

To have an answer to your question you need to define the word "commons".
Then the answer to "does NC produce a commons?" will be obvious.

Then I'll give my answer:
A "commons" is composed of things which can be reused fairly and honestly.
Getting retribution for one's work obviously seems fair and honest. NC
doesn't allow it (I can't get retribution for my derivative of an NC
work), so NC doesn't create a commons.


Note :
The irony is where the word "commons" comes from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commons
The Wikipedia article does not mention any "non-commercial" limitation to
the "number of traditional rights" which could be exercised by the
commoners.

cheers

Antoine.






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page