Creative Commons Aotearoa New Zealand discussion

["Sutherland, Paul" <Paul.Sutherland AT ccc.govt.nz>]

A very measured response. 

Choice is very important. ND and NC are a part of choice.

If someone wishes to profit from your labours is it not fair that you
may wish to receive some recompense. 

That is pretty basic economics.

A society based on gifts is a long time away.

If you want to spend noble energy on something why not try to get
Wikimedia Commons to accept a variety of licenses rather than them
rudely demanding that people drop the NC so that Wikipedia can make
things available commercially.

/paul

-----Original Message-----
From: cc-nz-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org
[mailto:cc-nz-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Hunt
Sent: Thursday, 30 August 2012 8:35 PM
To: cc-nz AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Re: [Cc-nz] Time to retire ND and NC

> From: Danyl Strype <strypey AT disintermedia.net.nz> wrote:

> Kia ora koutou
> 
> I just read an article published by Students for Free Culture in the 
> USA, advocating for the retirement of the No-Derivatives, and 
> Non-Commercial clauses from the CC license suite:
> http://freeculture.org/blog/2012/08/27/stop-the-inclusion-of-proprieta
> ry-licenses-in-creative-commons-4-0/

(snipped)

> The ND and NC licenses have contributed to a robust global discussion 
> around how copyright can work for everyone in the digital era, and 
> what "free culture" and "free license" really means. They have been a 
> safe paddling pool for people who want to dip their toe into a more 
> open approach to licensing, particularly for institutions who have 
> risk and change aversion written into their legal DNA. However I agree

> with SFC, NC and ND have done their job, and it's time to put them out

> to pasture.
> 
> Keen to hear others' thoughts on these issues.

Thank you for raising this topic Danyl.

I'd be very disappointed in seeing these license options removed. While
I'm sympathetic to free culture, there are valid use cases for NC or ND
in the spectrum of licensing that CC offers.

A major benefit of CC is the spectrum of license choices that allows one
to offer content under standardised licenses with more nuances than All
Rights Reserved.

I am a member of, and developer for, the New Zealand Alpine Club. One of
our recent projects is a collaborative database of climbing data:
http://climbnz.org.nz The site content (over 7,000 routes) has been
added by volunteers based on previous publications or personal notes,
and is licensed as BY-SA-NC.

BY to ensure attribution and a link back to the source.
SA to encourage sharing of the data around the climbing community.
NC so that no-one can capture monetary value from the data without
consulting with NZAC.

The NZAC is not adverse to people making money on publishing climbing
guides but in this case NC was needed to encourage contributions from
people who might otherwise try and publish their material under their
own name in their own guide, and who don't want to see someone else
making money out of the content they have contributed. This way they
know that commercial use of the data will only occur with via agreement
with NZAC who will aim for arrangements that will benefit the wider
climbing community.

If NC was unavailable, and the data was only available under BY-SA, it
might discourage such contributors. Without NC, the NZAC might
reconsider offering the data under CC and instead define a unique
license to suit their situation; that would be a loss to the commons.

It has nothing to do with "dipping toes" and more to do with having
standardised options to portray a range of rights. Removing options
would make CC less useful, IMHO.

Regards
Jonathan

Jonathan Hunt
http://huntdesign.co.nz
+64 21 529 250
PO Box 1062, Christchurch 8140, New Zealand

_______________________________________________
cc-nz mailing list
cc-nz AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-nz
Creative Commons Aotearoa New Zealand
http://www.creativecommons.org.nz/
**********************************************************************
This electronic email and any files transmitted with it are intended 
solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed.

The views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender
and may not necessarily reflect the views of the Christchurch City Council.

If you are not the correct recipient of this email please advise the
sender and delete.

Christchurch City Council
http://www.ccc.govt.nz
**********************************************************************