Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Gregor Hagedorn <g.m.hagedorn AT gmail.com>]

Dear Kerrick,

> As it currently stands, I keep a strict copyright on all my work and
> carefully license it to my clients—I have to, it's how I make my living.

I have no issues with making a living from copyrighted material. I
have an issue with the present ambiguity of the NC license, which is
not air-tight enough for those like you (although it probably really
is, except that some people desire to interpret it liberally), and at
the same time is almost unusable for organized non-profit activities.
In principle, having two licenses could be an option, which is why I
challenged the list readership to provide an operational definition of
"non-profit".

The more realistic way forward that I see it to make NC airtight, i.e.
fix a conservative interpretation, making it air-tight enough for you.
At the same time, I would desire to make the license look less close
to a true open content license. A conservative NC does not really
contribute to a "Creative Commons", but to an "individuals" (I know
this does not exist). And "non-commercial" is much too often seen by
contributors as a valuable cause, rather than as a means of high
protection.

I think renaming the NC license to something that matches your
expectations of high protection, and stop deceiving people who like
and can afford to contribute to a commons, would be excellent progress
for CC 4.0. This is what we argue in
http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.150.2189

Gregor