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: "teun spaans" <teun.spaans AT gmail.com>
  • 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 11:29:19 +0100

While understanding the rational behind NC, I feel there might be many potential contributors who want to donate some of their images to non commercial projects, but dont give away their stuff for free: It doesnt feel right if I put a lot of effort in making a series of photographs, and others start making money out of it.

Another category of people who might prefer this type of license are profesional photographers. While cleaning up old images on the dutch wiki, I remember at least one professional photographer who, after  being contacted by email, refused to change his license from some CC-NC to CC-BY-SA.Consequently, we alas had to remove his excellent photos.

I agree with Eriks argument that such an effort might be an island standing not much chance of survival. But if such a "commons" would be succesful in the sense of attracting many contributors, it might spawn of similar sites for text, sound, software and so on. If it would be the first island of an archipelago, it might be the start of something new.

I wish you health and happiness,
teun spaans

On 3/8/07, Antoine <antoine AT pitrou.net> wrote:
> 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.


_______________________________________________
cc-licenses mailing list
cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page