[open-science] SPARC author addendum uses CC-NC licence and now all hybrid publishers have followed

[Nick Barnes]

On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 17:26, Heather Morrison <heatherm at eln.bc.ca> wrote:
> On 2011-12-12, at 9:04 AM, Nick Barnes wrote:
>>
>>
>> For instance, effectively CC-NC prevents the Climate Code Foundation
>> from using a document to promote the public understanding of climate
>> science.
>
> How is this commercial use? If this is commercial use under CC-NC, then CC-NC needs work.

The Climate Code Foundation is a non-profit company, intending to (for
instance) train scientists, or develop science outreach materials, or
organise networks, workshops, and conferences.  All these activities
need to be funded.  For instance the CCF might be paid for its
services by an institution, a funding agency, or an NGO.  That's
"commercial", or could certainly be viewed as such by either an author
or a court.  Similarly, if we were to have adverts, or a "Donate"
button, on our blog, we could not quote from a CC-NC work in a blog
article.

> If CC licensing is this complicated, would we be better off not using CC licenses at all?

License choice is of course a matter for the author, as is the
decision of whether to publish at all.
-- 
Nick Barnes, Climate Code Foundation, http://climatecode.org/