| |||||||||||||
Stop the inclusion of proprietary licenses in Creative Commons 4.0 (freeculture.org)Stop the inclusion of proprietary licenses in Creative Commons 4.0 (freeculture.org)Posted Aug 28, 2012 5:50 UTC (Tue) by ekj (guest, #1524)In reply to: Stop the inclusion of proprietary licenses in Creative Commons 4.0 (freeculture.org) by gmaxwell Parent article: Stop the inclusion of proprietary licenses in Creative Commons 4.0 (freeculture.org)
Agreed. People choose -NC because they think (for example) that they'd prefer if their photos wheren't used in advertising-campaigns, but actually end up making the photos unusable on some tiny personal blog, because the blog has advertising (which doesn't even cover the hosting-costs)
(Log in to post comments)
Stop the inclusion of proprietary licenses in Creative Commons 4.0 (freeculture.org) Posted Aug 28, 2012 10:09 UTC (Tue) by wertigon (guest, #42963) [Link]
Non-Commercial does not mean no profit. It means do not use this work for the explicit and sole purpose of making money on it. So yes, if your blog is the digital equivalent of a newspaper then it's commercial. If it's just your own blog with some ads to soften the blow of hosting, then no, it's not commercial.
Of course, IANAL, so could be wrong, but that's how it works in socialist Europe. :)
Stop the inclusion of proprietary licenses in Creative Commons 4.0 (freeculture.org) Posted Aug 30, 2012 9:08 UTC (Thu) by ekj (guest, #1524) [Link]
According to the CC-licenses in question, commercial means:
"in any manner that is primarily intended for or directed toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation."
That's a far shot from your claimed "explicit and sole purpose", "primarily" is very different from "solely", and the license does not cover only monetary compensation, but also "commercial advantage".
|
|||||||||||||