Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Gunnar Wolf <gwolf AT gwolf.org>]

Kerrick Long dijo [Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 03:58:12PM -0600]:
> I noticed that there are conflicting proposals (1 and 2) on the 4.0 NC wiki
> page <http://wiki.creativecommons.org/4.0/NonCommercial>, one to make the
> license more conservative and one to make it more liberal. I also noticed
> that proposal 7 was about to repalce NC with a NonProfit license. Why not
> split NC into two separate Creative Commons licenses?
> 
> NonCommercial could keep the more conservative definition, and NonProfit
> could keep the liberal definition. For example, it could be clarified that
> the use of a licensed work on an ad-supported website is disallowed under
> NC, but allowed under NP. (Of course, if it seems better, NP could be
> conservative and NC could be liberal.) Could we make this an official
> proposal to be considered for 4.0?

Humm... This sounds as if you were trying to find a licensing model
for one specific business model. That, IMO, is not a sane route - As
different ways to (directly? indirectly?) create profit off a piece of
work appear, we'd end up inventing licenses for those specific cases.

For many of us, NC and ND licenses are both a compromise and an
invitation. Many of us will not agree those are free enough for works
licensed with them to be considered part of the commons. Still, I was
*very* happy when my workplace (in academia) will publish everything
under a CC-BY-NC-ND model. Why? Because it was strictly ARR until
then. And I was allowed even to go more liberal than that, publishing
a book under CC-BY-SA. 

That's the route I think CC should do. NC and ND should allow people
to open up their heads to the concept, find alternate ways to get
money from their works (or acknowledge their works aren't made just to
get money), and end up picking up a real free license, contributing to
the commons.