[okfn-discuss] Problems of nomenclature

[Kim Tucker]

Hi Rob and all,

>> ...
>> How about simply "commons licences" ?
>
> If it's not commercially exploitable then it's not a commons, it's an
> allotment. :-)

So, 'shareable works licences' wins.

>> 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.

Copyleft is libre by definition.

ShareAlike is not: cc-by-sa (libre), cc-by-nc-sa (non-libre).

So, "share-alike" seems like a good name for the general category that
Chris described.

Kim

-----------------------

On 14 March 2012 21:31, Rob Myers <rob at robmyers.org> wrote:
> 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. :-)

So, 'shareable works licences' wins.

>
>>> 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.

Copyleft is libre by definition.

ShareAlike is not: cc-by-sa (libre), cc-by-nc-sa (non-libre).

So, "share-alike" seems a good name for the general category that
Chris described.

>
> - Rob.
>
> _______________________________________________
> okfn-discuss mailing list
> okfn-discuss at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/okfn-discuss