NC Clause

Hello,

I think we have discussed this issue many times but I also
think that
David Wiley makes a good point here:

Creative Commons vs MIT OCW: Interpreting the Noncommercial
Clause
(http://openc
ontent.org/blog/archives/307)

Thanks to Stephen Downes for the info.

Ignasi


_______________________________________________
cc-community mailing list
cc-communitylists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community

Ignasi Labastida i Juan wrote:
> I think we have discussed this issue many times but I
also think that
> David Wiley makes a good point here:
> 
> Creative Commons vs MIT OCW: Interpreting the
Noncommercial Clause
> (http://openc
ontent.org/blog/archives/307)

In brief, Wiley points out that:

1) CC's interpretation of NC starts by ruling out all
commercial users
(i.e. it is not a "commercial use" restriction,
but a "commercial user"
restriction -- IOW it discriminates against PEOPLE, not
APPLICATIONS).

2) MIT's interpretation (of the VERY SAME license) rejects
this,
claiming the license allows commercial users to use the work
so long as
their use is "non-commercial".

There is ONE reply, which says, essentially "it's okay,
they're just
interpretations -- it would really be decided in
court".

ACK!

If CC were to adopt that position (and I have heard CC reps
present it
multiple times), it would be TOTALLY IRRESPONSIBLE.

If a license term is subject to that much ambiguity, then it
is clearly
a BAD license term and should be immediately deprecated and
removed from
publication.

If NC is to remain in the CC licenses, then it should spell
out EXACTLY
what it means. This kind of ambiguity is unsupportable.

ISTM that the actual PRACTICE in interpreting CC license is
that most
people think it means "anyone can use the work as long
as they don't
sell it". Of course, this gets dicey when indirect
value through
advertising is derived. But most users appear to believe
that *some*
advertising-sponsored channels are acceptable.

All of this is just asking for lawsuits. Is that the point
of the
license? It's a make-work program for lawyers?

Frankly, you don't need licenses for that. We can have that
kind of fun
just interpreting what "fair use" means (hard
enough in the US, let
alone internationally).

Right now, CC licenses are still a fringe phenomenon. But if
they are to
grow in use -- as presumeably CC hopes they will -- then
they need to
also grow in quality so that they become clear, useful
documents.

Cheers,
Terry

-- 
Terry Hancock (hancockAnansiSpaceworks.com)
Anansi Spaceworks http://www.AnansiSpac
eworks.com

_______________________________________________
cc-community mailing list
cc-communitylists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community