Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Anthony <osm AT inbox.org>]

On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 5:10 PM, Valentin Villenave
<valentin AT villenave.net> wrote:
> 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.

How so?  Just because the license in some cases allows commercial use,
that doesn't mean the authors who choose the license are engaging in
commercial use.

> "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.

So what about -NC-SA?