[okfn-discuss] Creative Commons NonCommercial and NoDerivatives Discussion

Mon Dec 17 20:35:19 UTC 2012

What we need is to be as clear as possible about the facts:

   - BY-SA is adequate to deal with most of the concerns that lead people
   to select NC
   - NC and BY-SA are incompatible, so the main function of NC is to block
   any mixing with content from Wikipedia and all other BY-SA material.
   Really. The meme I want to spread is: "choose NC if you want to make sure
   your work is never combined with anything from Wikipedia."

Furthermore, while not important, there's a terrible tendency for people to
be annoyed about someone making money even when they had no inclination to
make any money themselves. NC is just as likely to block your local bakery
from using your photo in their ad as it is to block some corporation you
don't like. And NC won't stop political groups you dislike.

We have to ask: are people choosing NC for bad reasons? If so, are they
assuming those reasons are valid because the existence of NC seems to be
justification? Why would CC offer NC if there was no good reason to have NC?

So, in the end, we have to isolate the possibly *good* reasons for choosing
NC and try to make sure it isn't chosen for other reasons.

Anyway, given the history, it makes more sense to continue supporting NC
while actively working to clarify these things and discourage its use.

Cheers,

Aaron

--
Aaron Wolf
wolftune.com

On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 2:52 PM, Tim McNamara
<paperless at timmcnamara.co.nz>wrote:

> I hate to say this, but I'm not persuaded by calls to abolish these
> licences.
>
> Creative Commons is providing alternative options to All Rights Reserved.
> It's the copyright holders who have say over how things are licenced. If we
> as a community feel that ND and NC are too restrictive, then we should
> engage with the rights holder.
>
> I have found these non-open licences to be excellent stepping stones to a
> more open world. Some artists, producers and publishers are simply too
> scared and moving directly from All Rights Reserved to CC-BY is too far of
> a shift. However, if they use CC-BY-NC for a few years and begin to hear
> complaints, they tend to shift.
>
>
>
>
> On 18 December 2012 06:09, Everton Zanella Alvarenga <
> everton.alvarenga at okfn.org> wrote:
>
>> Timothy Vollmer, December 17th, 2012
>>
>> In the last few months there has been quite a bit of discussion about
>> what CC should do about the non-free licenses. Some have called for
>> Creative Commons to retire or otherwise change the way we offer
>> licenses containing the NonCommercial and NoDerivatives conditions
>> because those licenses do not create a true commons of open content
>> that everyone is free to use, redistribute, remix, and repurpose.
>> These suggestions have been made by the Students for Free Culture,
>> QuestionCopyright.org, the Open Knowledge Foundation, and others.
>>
>> Continue here: http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/35773
>>
>> Tom
>>
>> --
>> Everton Zanella Alvarenga (also Tom)
>> Open Knowledge Foundation Brasil
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> okfn-discuss mailing list
>> okfn-discuss at lists.okfn.org
>> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/okfn-discuss
>> Unsubscribe: http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/okfn-discuss
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> okfn-discuss mailing list
> okfn-discuss at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/okfn-discuss
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/okfn-discuss
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/okfn-discuss/attachments/20121217/a63e8064/attachment.html>