Authored by: Wol on Wednesday, April 17 2013 @ 04:08 PM EDT |
Slightly differently, my photos are on flickr and licenced CC-BY-NC-ND.
I like downloading nice pictures and using them as wallpaper, so I felt I needed
to choose a licence that would let others do that to my pictures.
But the reality is that, as soon as UTILITY ceases to be part of the picture
(and it's not, for art, and writings, and stuff like that) then any -BY- licence
is unlikely to allow derivatives. Because it detracts from what the original
author was trying to say.
Cheers,
Wol[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 20 2013 @ 12:07 PM EDT |
One of the major problems with the CC BY-NC licenses, is that
"Non-Commercial" is not defined. MIT, Creative Commons Foundations,
and the Dutch Performer's Rights Collection Society between them, define that
term three different ways, which are mutually exclusive.
There are organizations, and individuals, that define "Non-Commercial"
to be "only organizations with 501(c)3 status, or the equivalent in other
countries, or private individuals who are not self-employed" may use the
content.
Under that definition, virtually no educational institution in North America
would be able to use any Open CourseWare, without running afoul of that
interpretation of the license.
A suggested amendment to that definition «501(c)3 status» was to exclude
organizations of a religious nature and intent, along with politicians, and
politically orientated organizations.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|