Development of Creative Commons licenses

[drew Roberts <zotz AT 100jamz.com>]

On Sunday 13 May 2007 03:55 am, Eric Garner wrote:
> --- Jonathon Blake <jonathon.blake AT gmail.com> wrote:
> > Have you taken a look at the license that "media
> > conglomerates" are
> > selecting, when choosing a CC license?
>
> So what?
>
> > Provide a legal definition for "non commercial".
> >
> > I suspect that the first dozen or so cases (in the
> > US at least) will
> > revolve around:
> > *  What is legally meant by "non-commercial";
> > * What the licensor understands by "non-commercial";
> > * What the licensee understands by "non-commercial";
> > * How much weight to give to the Creative Commons
> > Guidelines on what
> > the license means;
>
> Please choose a context: A-SoundExchange demands
> royalties because your CC-NC music webstream plays
> commercials (we've already covered this) B-Alice
> decides to split hairs to the nth degree over the
> CC-NC license she placed on her song (the judge will
> have little patience for this because, once again,
> Alice is the one who chose a copyleft license after
> all).

Please, CC-NC is not a copyleft license in any way, shape or form.

("Copyleft, all rights reversed !" is a saying some at least may remember 
form 
earlier days.)

My take has always been that to be a copyleft license, a license must be Free 
and have SA terms. Others hold that SA terms only are needed and non-Free 
licenses can be copyleft as well. I don't buy that, but CC-NC is neither.
>
snip

But, even spme people who use the GPL dual license as a business model. The 
non-copyleft license terms that can be negotiated for by those unwilling to 
use the code in a copyleft way are a revenue stream reserved to the copyright 
holder even when putting works under a copyleft license.

all the best,

drew
-- 
(da idea man)