Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Anthony <osm AT inbox.org>]

Copyright doesn't cover "having" or "using".  And it possibly doesn't cover the data you're talking about either.  Database rights are waived under CC-BY-NC 3.0.

But most relevantly, I don't think there's much purpose in "having" or "using" the data if you can't make any money from it.  Last I checked, the science/research community, as well as the general public, pretty much universally makes money.

The benefit to the public is that you have allowed the public to download the data.  Not that you've slapped an NC license on it.

On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 7:57 PM, <pcreso AT pcreso.com> wrote:

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

_______________________________________________
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