cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses
List archive
Re: [cc-licenses] Version 4:0:Rebranding "noncommercial" to "commercial rights reserved"
- From: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell AT gmail.com>
- To: Development of Creative Commons licenses <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
- Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] Version 4:0:Rebranding "noncommercial" to "commercial rights reserved"
- Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2012 13:20:44 -0400
On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 1:07 PM, Gregor Hagedorn <g.m.hagedorn AT gmail.com>
wrote:
> On 13 April 2012 18:31, Heather Morrison <hgmorris AT sfu.ca> wrote:
>> "Commercial rights reserved" does not mean the same thing as
>> "noncommercial". Noncommercial includes the concept that a work is meant
>> to be primarily or entirely outside of the commercial realm rather than
>> the creator reserving commercial rights.
>> Some of us would like to broaden the part of our world that is not thought
>> of in commercial terms - including many instances where people are paid
>> for their work.
>
> What you describe is what many believe the NC license is, but what in
> fact it is not. You describe a totally new license. I would like to
> see a legally workable definition for that (I have not seen one), but
> please let us keep that to a separate thread.
I was in the process of writing a similar message.
Heather's goals are admirable, but they're unsupported by the license
text (or, in fact the text of any content license I've ever seen
drafted). The are representative of a common misunderstanding of the
meaning of the NC licenses, a misunderstanding furthered by the name
of the license. In reality, NC licensing prohibits (or at least
makes excessively risky) a great wealth of activity outside of the
"part of our world that is not thought of in commercial terms".
> where there was room for misunderstanding about intentions. However,
> Creative Commons can easily change the name, the label and the brand.
> My present proposal is based on keeping the present very restrictive
> legal re-use permission, while avoiding to label it with something
I think the proposal to change the name is an excellent one.
I think that CC-CRR "commercial rights reserved" might still be
surpassed with some additional thought by even better language— though
I admit I'd thought about this and never come up with anything as good
as that, I think the best I had was "Commercially Prejudiced license"—
but I think that "commercial rights reserved" is strictly superior to
non-commercial: It reduces the confusion that arises from people
believing that NC licenses promote anti-commercialism (which they do
not), and it strengthens that case where NC licenses have been
recommended where there wasn't confusion (when the creator hoped to
exploit the work commercially themselves).
-
[cc-licenses] Version 4:0:Rebranding "noncommercial" to "commercial rights reserved",
Gregor Hagedorn, 04/13/2012
- Re: [cc-licenses] Version 4:0:Rebranding "noncommercial" to "commercial rights reserved", Mathias Schindler, 04/13/2012
-
Re: [cc-licenses] Version 4:0:Rebranding "noncommercial" to "commercial rights reserved",
Frances Pinter, 04/13/2012
-
Re: [cc-licenses] Version 4:0:Rebranding "noncommercial" to "commercial rights reserved",
Heather Morrison, 04/13/2012
- Re: [cc-licenses] Version 4:0:Rebranding "noncommercial" to "commercial rights reserved", Frances Pinter, 04/13/2012
-
Re: [cc-licenses] Version 4:0:Rebranding "noncommercial" to "commercial rights reserved",
Gregor Hagedorn, 04/13/2012
- Re: [cc-licenses] Version 4:0:Rebranding "noncommercial" to "commercial rights reserved", Gregory Maxwell, 04/13/2012
- Re: [cc-licenses] Version 4:0:Rebranding "noncommercial" to "commercial rights reserved", David Chart, 04/13/2012
-
Re: [cc-licenses] Version 4:0:Rebranding "noncommercial" to "commercial rights reserved",
zotz, 04/16/2012
-
Re: [cc-licenses] Version 4:0:Rebranding "noncommercial" to "commercial rights reserved": please don't!,
Heather Morrison, 04/16/2012
- Re: [cc-licenses] Version 4:0:Rebranding "noncommercial" to "commercial rights reserved": please don't!, Gregor Hagedorn, 04/17/2012
-
Re: [cc-licenses] Version 4:0:Rebranding "noncommercial" to "commercial rights reserved": please don't!,
drew Roberts, 04/17/2012
-
Re: [cc-licenses] Version 4:0:Rebranding "noncommercial" to "commercial rights reserved": please don't!,
Heather Morrison, 04/17/2012
- Re: [cc-licenses] Version 4:0:Rebranding "noncommercial" to "commercial rights reserved": please don't!, Francesco Poli, 04/18/2012
- Re: [cc-licenses] Version 4:0:Rebranding "noncommercial" to "commercial rights reserved": please don't!, zotz, 04/23/2012
- Re: [cc-licenses] Version 4:0:Rebranding "noncommercial" to "commercial rights reserved": please don't!, Anthony, 04/24/2012
- Re: [cc-licenses] Version 4:0:Rebranding "noncommercial" to "commercial rights reserved": please don't!, drew Roberts, 04/24/2012
-
Re: [cc-licenses] Version 4:0:Rebranding "noncommercial" to "commercial rights reserved": please don't!,
Heather Morrison, 04/17/2012
-
Re: [cc-licenses] Version 4:0:Rebranding "noncommercial" to "commercial rights reserved": please don't!,
Heather Morrison, 04/16/2012
-
Re: [cc-licenses] Version 4:0:Rebranding "noncommercial" to "commercial rights reserved",
Heather Morrison, 04/13/2012
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.