Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - Re: [cc-licenses] Suggestion for CC 4.0: Make a universal license that works for all.

cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: pcreso AT pcreso.com
  • To: Development of Creative Commons licenses <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] Suggestion for CC 4.0: Make a universal license that works for all.
  • Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2012 16:57:19 -0700 (PDT)

My turn to disagree :-)

NC potentially provides a huge benefit for the general public & science/research community as institutions (like the one I work for) release large amounts of environmental data for free, under NC. So we retain the right to make $$ from the data, but anyone can have & use it otherwise.

One online database we provide such access to has >20,000 current registered users, & downloads are up 50% over the last 12 months, to 100,000,000 records per quarter.

Users wishing to reuse our data commercially obviously cannot do this under a CC3-NC licence, but are able to negotiate a commercial relationship & custom licence.


We are also a national authority, & often staff are expert witnesses in environmental related court cases. So our licence will include a clause (like the UK Open Govt Licence) which allows us to revoke the licence if a users misuses or misrepresents the data or the organisation. (This is under development, using CC+) & hopefully will be something more easily implemented under CC4.


--- On Thu, 8/2/12, Anthony <osm AT inbox.org> wrote:

From: Anthony <osm AT inbox.org>
Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] Suggestion for CC 4.0: Make a universal license that works for all.
To: "Development of Creative Commons licenses" <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Date: Thursday, August 2, 2012, 9:39 AM

On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 4:48 PM, sebastian nielsen
<nielsen.sebastian AT gmail.com> wrote:
> the problem of allowing a derative by-nc-sa work to be released as by-sa is
> that a commercial user then can change color of one pixel, then it become
> derative and the "noncommercial" clause is bypassed.

You say that like it's a bad thing ;).

> I understand that nc is a restriction, but its a very small restriction
> compared to nd or Non-CC license.

I definitely disagree with that.  An NC license is pretty much useless.
_______________________________________________
List info and archives at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses
Unsubscribe at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/options/cc-licenses

In consideration of people subscribed to this list to participate
in the CC licenses http://wiki.creativecommons.org/4.0 development
process, please direct unrelated discussions to the cc-community list
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community



Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page