Development of Creative Commons licenses

["Greg London" <greglondon.1 AT gmail.com>]

On 4/26/07, Joachim Durchholz <jo AT durchholz.org> wrote:

Terry Hancock schrieb:
>
> 2) Shareware is an utter economic and technical failure, whereas Free
> Software is rocking the planet.

That depends.

The original idea died very quickly.
However, it quickly mutated into "try before you buy", and that has been
a success.

 

 

This only reinforces my point that NC and ND are proprietary licenses.

They are for proprieters of a business to give out free samples and

possibly get free advertising so that people come to their website

and buy something.

 

You yourself are suggesting in your statement above that NC-ND is

the sort of thing you would apply to a crippled version of software,

let people try it, and then have them purchase the uncrippled version.

 

Either way, it is NOT about the community. It is about the proprieter.

 

And do not confuse VALUE of the product with ADVANTAGE of the author.

Yes, the members of the community get value when they purchase some

ND-ND work. But the fact that the proprieter maintains himself at an

ADVANTAGE with regard to the rights to the work over the community,

is what defines whether the license is for the benefit of all or for the

benefit of the creator.

 

I've paid plenty of money for various All Rights Reseved works.

I buy music, movies, software, etc. And I get value for my money.

But those authors always maintain an advantage of rights over the

community that is receiving the works.

 

No one is arguing that there isn't VALUE in the work licensed NC-ND.

But it is whether or not the author maintains an ADVANTAGE that

determines whether the license is for the benefit of all or for the

benefit of the author.