On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 6:09 AM, Pharos <[email protected]> wrote:
> We might benefit, though, from a rebranding of > NonCommercial, but probably not to something as bare and harsh as > "CommercialMonopoly". > The suggestion that's been tossed around the cc-licenses list is "Commercial Rights Reserved." I think that covers the meaning better than NonCommercial, and would do more to avoid the use of the license by people who are trying to avoid commercial use altogether. > On the other hand, I think a much better case can be made for retiring > the NoDerivaties license, which only partakes of the commons in the > vaguest of senses. I think I have the same reaction to this proposal as you do to the other. I think in order to make this argument you have to be completely comfortable with either (a) there is no "legitimate" use for a license that permits verbatim reproduction but no more, or (b) Creative Commons as an organization should not be the one to maintain that license. I can't really get behind either of those statements. (Especially, thinking more about (a), because the alternative in many cases to a -ND license is ARR.) > The primary 'legitimate' users of this license are > archives and cultural institutions, who are concerned about issues > like provenance and curatorial integrity, so if we do retire this > license, we should accompany that retirement with some enhanced > gadget-like attribution functionality designed to meet the needs of > this community. > I'm all about more attribution gadgets. Thanks, Parker -- parker higgins san francisco, ca http://parkerhiggins.net gmail / gchat: [email protected] twitter / identi.ca: @xor skype: thisisparker please consider software freedom before reading this e-mail on a proprietary platform
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freeculture.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss FAQ: http://wiki.freeculture.org/Fc-discuss
