Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

Bjorn wrote:

> Another observation is that with this introduction we would make the 
> distinction between
> non-commercial and commercial even more difficult as it is now without a 
> clear definition of commercial use.

The only time I've used a developing nations license, I dual licensed
the work.   Dev-nations and CC-NC-SA.  The organization that wanted
the Dev Nations license, decided that it was easier to work around the
limits that the CC-NC-SA imposed, than the limits that the DevNations
imposed.  [IIRC, their lawyers eventually decided that the Dev Nations
license prohibited printing in a first world country, with non-gratis
distribution in a fourth world country.]

>  find a clear definition of commercial use vs non-commercial use,

Until the license contains an explicit definition of either, or
preferably both, "commercial" and "non-commercial" the NC license is
going to be confusing.

Adding a Dev-Nations style license as an option will turn it from the
byzantine, to bzantinized Russian dolls.

Example time:  Explain to Fortune50_media_conglomerate why they have
to pay royalties for showing a movie based on a manuscript you wrote,
whilst Lesotho-TV does not have to pay royalties, and Oranjemund
Productions, headquartered in Oranjemund, Namibia, does not have to
pay you royalties. Then explain to that same media conglomerate that
they also owe royalty payments to Oranjemund Productions.

Drew wrote:

> Anyone choosing that option would in effect be "making a new license" that will 
> conflict with the growing "Open Access Publishing" movement.

I can argue in favor of both sides of the issue.   [Yes, it conflict.
No, it does not conflict.]
What it will do, is further balkanize the umbrella that "Creative
Commons" implies.

xan

jonathon