Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - Re: [cc-licenses] Time limited CC licenses for version 4.0?

cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Andrew McNicol <andrew AT exhipigeonist.net>
  • To: cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] Time limited CC licenses for version 4.0?
  • Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2011 08:09:45 +1100

From: Gregor Hagedorn <g.m.hagedorn AT gmail.com>
Subject: [cc-licenses] Time limited CC licenses for version 4.0? 
 
My personal preference would be to make the the NC license even more
strict, thus clarifying the current disadvantages ambiguity (many
licensors are willing to give generously, but licensees are unable to
take it, risk management requires them to choose the most conservative
interpretation), but counter that by making it ONLY available in time
limited versions, like:

NC2013
NC2020
NC2025

where the number indicates the year in which the NC license will be
voided, reverting the licences to one without the NC clause.

In addition, the license text might specify that the maximum duration
of an NC license is 25 years, even if a later years has been
accidentially named.

Not a bad idea, though I'm not entirely sold on it yet.  But I just wanted to add a few practical remarks.

There are many cases (I'm thinking websites in particular) where an author lists their CC license in a single location, such as the side panel of a blog using a CMS.  In these cases it may be difficult to implement this the way you suggest.  NC2013 would appear to be applicable for all content, from the earliest post from, say, eight years ago to one made yesterday.

An alternative is to declare the length of time rather than the year the clause would end.  So, NC7 would mean all my work is under an NC license until seven years after it's original publication.  This, of course, will need to be used in tandem with clearly stated dates of publication, which I believe is so in many cases, anyway.  And this is probably an easier practice than to state individual licenses for every work.

I also feel the meaning of NC2013 is a little ambiguous.  Does it mean it's no longer NC as of January 1 2013, or January 1 2014?  If I'm confused, there are probably others out there who would be, too =)  My revision may relieve this confusion.

So, if people support the idea of time limited NC licensing proposals, does this sound like a better way to go about it?

Andrew.



Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page