Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - Re: [cc-licenses] Lawsuit over Virgin Mobile's and Ethical Use

cc-licenses AT

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: drew Roberts <zotz AT>
  • To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts <cc-licenses AT>
  • Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] Lawsuit over Virgin Mobile's and Ethical Use
  • Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2007 09:04:22 -0400

On Friday 28 September 2007 11:47 pm, paola.dimaio AT wrote:
> Charles
> > Can you give a complete definition with what "ethical" means?
> Well, we are still discussing what 'commercial' means, right?
> Even commercial is not that straightforward
> We have non commercial use, not better specified
> Then we can also have 'ethical' use, and work it out later

Please no. It will make all the CC licenses basically unuseable. And
not for any works that do not contain visual representations of peoples
likenesses. And also especially not for BY amd BY-SA licenses. I personally
would not object as strongly to such use in anyhting with NC or ND even
though I think it ill advised there as well.

There is a point in a free society where we need to do good by our fellow man
and leave them to be responsible for their abuses.

Even the Free Software folks, who many might inagine would want anti military
bits in, left them out to keep the code Free.

Now, if you or someone else can come up will clean language that somehow will
make this work without all the confusion...
> It's not so difficult. It's a simple condition that allows to use CC
> licensed work only
> if it is not used for (see annex). In the annex you can put what you want

This would kill any SA sharing and re-use.
> The work covered under this licenses, and any parts thereof, cannot be
> used in conjunction with any of the following usages
> - illegal activities (any country)

And this would stop someone why? Is a person willing to abuse a child gonn
have second thoughts about abusing your copyright?

> - activities against human rights charter
> - activities that exploit and abuse people especially children

See above.
> - to sell unhealthy product and products that harm the environment

Now, this may be possible. A clause to the effect, that commercial does not
cover "endorsement" uses perhaps? Especially with respect to peoples images
> etcetera
> Any usage that is not in the black list, would not require permission
> Any usage that is in the black list, is prohibited

If it is a standard back list... But if each person gets to put in their own
back list... Kiss SA goodbye...
> simple as that
> > Unless you are using the word "ethical" is way that I'm unfamiliar
> > with... "ethics" are rules that a person voluntarily chooses to
> > follow. And which rules do and don't make up their "ethical code" is
> > up to them.
> I chose not to drink coke, and to to eat McDonalds hamburgers, and not
> to promote
> pornography and belligerant and slanderous websites, and not to do
> phisihing scams nor hack other people property and generally be
> respectful and kind

All well and good.
> and I am also responsible for the work that I produce not be used
> against my principles

Keep it to yourself then. In a Free society, you are not responsible for
Those who do the dirty works are responsible.
> > (In other words... for each person... what is and isn't ethical is
> > different.)
> sure - but we all agree in principle on certain points, right?

If only...
> > Now... the problem with putting an "ethical" clause into a license is
> > that if you do NOT completely define and explicitly list what the
> > rules that make up your "ethical code", then things are completely
> > ambiguous. And a person won't know what they can and can't do.
> agreed. Let me start working on a an ANNEX
> Cheers
> Paola
> > --
> >
> > Charles Iliya Krempeaux, B.Sc. <>
> >
> >
> > Vlog Razor... Vlogging News
> >

all the best,


Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page