Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Valentin Villenave <valentin AT villenave.net>]

On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 7:34 PM, Heather Morrison <hgmorris AT sfu.ca> wrote:
> Thank you very much for asking about this. I am strongly opposed to 
> changing "noncommercial" to "commercial rights reserved". The noncommercial 
> element is often used by creators who are not primarily in the commercial 
> realm, and "commercial rights reserved" is not necessarily what people mean 
> by "noncommercial".

It may not be what they *mean*, but it is what they actually *do* by
choosing these licenses. The fact that you (and a few others,
obviously) may have misunderstood what these licenses do, is no valid
argument in favor of keeping the old name (quite the opposite,
actually).

> Having to choose between granting or reserving commercial rights suggests 
> that the many people who share their work freely but just don't want others 
> to sell it are not welcome in the Creative Commons.

I fail to see where it implies these people are "unwelcome", I would
understand it if these licenses were depreciated and removed but that
isn’t what is suggested here.

"Commercial Rights Reserved" is (in my humble opinion) _exactly_ what
is needed to make -ND clearer and, dare I say, more honest. So, a
strong yay on my end.

Cheers,
V. Villenave.