Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

The problem of cost recovery is misleading; it is not part of the
license concept. The NC license is built on the concept of commercial
advantages rather than profit versus cost-recovery. Saving money, or
gaining fame and recognition are commercial advantages.

----

Rather I still see the biggest problem in the name "non-commercial".

The non-commercially minded licensors (who neither participate in
commerce nor want to) often choose the NC-license erroneously because
they identify themselves as non-commercial. However, the NC license
text is really meant for the commercially minded licensors who want to
protect their income from sales of a work, as they should be able to
do, but allow individual hobbyist limited use.

Conversely, only in very limited situations can non-profit
organisations (often called "non-commercial") safely use a work under
an NC license. In most cases will a non-profit organisation gain
commercial advantages -- regardless of cost compensation or not. The
license modulates that by requiring a "primarily intended" and it may
be possible to claim that the commercial advantage was not primarily
intended, but it will always be a risk how intention will be judged in
court ...

So many of these unnecessary misconceptions would go away by simply
renaming the NC license to "Commerical Rights Reserved / CRR" while
keeping its license text and stipulations intact otherwise...

Is there any hope for that?

Gregor