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 <[email protected]> wrote: > On 12/03/12 11:28, Kim Tucker wrote: >> A few comments interspersed below. >> >> On 9 March 2012 16:25, Chris Sakkas <[email protected]> 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 > [email protected] > http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/okfn-discuss _______________________________________________ okfn-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/okfn-discuss
