Development of Creative Commons licenses

["Jonathon Blake" <jonathon.blake AT gmail.com>]

Peter wrote:

> 120), "[u]nder the law, only the common understanding of a licensor and
> his licensees matters, as reflected in the written terms and conditions
> of the license agreement between them." How CC defines non-commercial
> doesn't matter as much as how you and your licensees defines it.

True.

> It's also worth remembering that a licensor's ability to govern the meaning 
> of unclear or ambiguous terms in the license varies from jurisdiction to 
> jurisdiction.

But will I win a lawsuit against an individual, or company that puts
my NC-licenced material on a website that has Google adds next to it,
or requires one to click on an add to view my NC content?

My understanding --- which is part of the NC material I wrote ---
states that that is clearly commercial, and as such is a violation of
the CC-NC licence.

> CC's FAQ in general is therefore just a guideline and not a set of hard rules.

If the court uses the Creative Commons guidelines, then I have a lost
case.  OTOH, If the court goes by what I have written,and published as
part of my material,  as how I understand the CC-BY-NC-SA Licence,
then I have a won case.

One thing that would greatly enhance the CC-NC licence, is if it
included a definition of the term "Non-Commercial".

Another thing that might help, is if MIT sued a public university [EG:
University of California (Los Angeles), University of Washington] for
using its NC material,because that usage is considered to be a
violation of the NC licence, under the CC NC guidelines.

xan

jonathon