[okfn-discuss] Problems of nomenclature

Wed Mar 14 20:31:28 UTC 2012

On 12/03/12 11:28, Kim Tucker wrote:
> A few comments interspersed below.
> 
> On 9 March 2012 16:25, Chris Sakkas <sanglorian at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi folks,
>>
>> Kim's suggested three terms for some rights reserved licences, specifically
>> those that allow a work to - at a minimum - be shared verbatim by any person
>> for any noncommercial purpose. They are 'shareable works licences’,
>> ‘shareable content licences’ and ‘shareable resource licences’. My
>> suggestion, via David Hirst, is 'commons content licences'.
> 
> How about simply "commons licences" ?

If it's not commercially exploitable then it's not a commons, it's an
allotment. :-)

>> Rob:
>>>
>>> The Open Data Handbook says that 'share-alike' is broader than copyleft?
>>>
>>> This sounds...interesting...
>>
>> Maybe a better way of putting it is that it is deeper but not broader: it’s
>> my impression that all copyleft would be considered share-alike libre and
>> all share-alike libre would be considered copyleft, but that share-alike
>> would include non-libre resources with ‘copyleft-like’ provisions.
> 
> Agreed - "share-alike"  obviates the need for "copyleft-like".

Copyleft is the older and more widely used term historically speaking, I
think. NC is a subtraction from SA, not an addition to it. Well, it's an
additional restriction. But it is not full sharealike as you don't have
the full rights that SA would otherwise grant.

- Rob.