Re: CC strategic elements

--- Jonathon Blake <jonathon.blakegmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Have you taken a look at the license that "media
> conglomerates" are
> selecting, when choosing a CC license?

So what?

> Provide a legal definition for "non
commercial".
> 
> I suspect that the first dozen or so cases (in the
> US at least) will
> revolve around:
> *  What is legally meant by
"non-commercial";
> * What the licensor understands by
"non-commercial";
> * What the licensee understands by
"non-commercial";
> * How much weight to give to the Creative Commons
> Guidelines on what
> the license means;

Please choose a context: A-SoundExchange demands
royalties because your CC-NC music webstream plays
commercials (we've already covered this) B-Alice
decides to split hairs to the nth degree over the
CC-NC license she placed on her song (the judge will
have little patience for this because, once again,
Alice is the one who chose a copyleft license after
all).

> > That decision will set the course for how future
> open-source licenses will work.
> 
> You've forgotten a couple of things:
> 
> * The ability of Congress to inflict mandatory
"Your
> Rights Removed"
> licenses on all content;
> * Bad prior case law that mandates "your rights
> removed" for all content;
> * Software EULAs that turn over the Intellectual
> Property Rights of
> content created with that software to the company
> that
> wrote/distributed the software;
> 
> Unfortunately, there is precedent for all three of
> those cases.

Don't these apply to full coryright too, or are they
specific to CC licensed material? I take it "all
content" means just that.

_______________________________________________
cc-licenses mailing list
cc-licenseslists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses

On Sunday 13 May 2007 03:55 am, Eric Garner wrote:
> --- Jonathon Blake <jonathon.blakegmail.com> wrote:
> > Have you taken a look at the license that
"media
> > conglomerates" are
> > selecting, when choosing a CC license?
>
> So what?
>
> > Provide a legal definition for "non
commercial".
> >
> > I suspect that the first dozen or so cases (in
the
> > US at least) will
> > revolve around:
> > *  What is legally meant by
"non-commercial";
> > * What the licensor understands by
"non-commercial";
> > * What the licensee understands by
"non-commercial";
> > * How much weight to give to the Creative Commons
> > Guidelines on what
> > the license means;
>
> Please choose a context: A-SoundExchange demands
> royalties because your CC-NC music webstream plays
> commercials (we've already covered this) B-Alice
> decides to split hairs to the nth degree over the
> CC-NC license she placed on her song (the judge will
> have little patience for this because, once again,
> Alice is the one who chose a copyleft license after
> all).

Please, CC-NC is not a copyleft license in any way, shape or
form.

("Copyleft, all rights reversed !" is a saying
some at least may remember form 
earlier days.)

My take has always been that to be a copyleft license, a
license must be Free 
and have SA terms. Others hold that SA terms only are needed
and non-Free 
licenses can be copyleft as well. I don't buy that, but
CC-NC is neither.
>
snip

But, even spme people who use the GPL dual license as a
business model. The 
non-copyleft license terms that can be negotiated for by
those unwilling to 
use the code in a copyleft way are a revenue stream reserved
to the copyright 
holder even when putting works under a copyleft license.

all the best,

drew
-- 
(da idea man)
_______________________________________________
cc-licenses mailing list
cc-licenseslists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses