Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Frances Pinter <frances AT pinter.org.uk>]

Hi Kat,

Thank you so much for your clear articulation of the pros and cons of
changing the NC name to CRR.

I have always been in favour of changing the name. Even though many people
now understand that NC means C is possible, though restricted and anyone who
doesn't have the C rights has to apply to the C holder to get permission to
C the licensed item under question, which may or may not be acceptable to
the C holder (you see my problem) - it is worth the pain changing over to a
much clearer flagging of what is intended.

I come out of the book publishing world, and we are now seeing steps towards
open access that would not be possible without a sensible digital licensing
policy. CC NC offers this, but could be clearer with more easily understood
labeling.

I know I've brushed over a lot of detail - but on weighing up the arguments
I'd go for CRR.

Best,
Frances




On 10/12/2012 19:27, "Kat Walsh" <kat AT creativecommons.org> wrote:

> There is one piece of the recent NC/ND announcements I'd like to call
> particular attention to.
> 
> One of the open proposals is to change the name of the NonCommercial
> license to "Commercial Rights Reserved". I've put together a page on
> the wiki (also linked in the previous email) with a description of the
> proposal and some arguments for and against--you can find it at
> http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Commercial_Rights_Reserved
> 
> (I've seen several people comment on and link to it already; thank you!)
> 
> This would be a pretty big change, and we're hesitant to do it unless
> there is strong support. We'd like to hear broader input on it to be
> able to make a decision--please let us know what you think!
> 
> Cheers,
> Kat