Message 00526 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: joxT00515 Message: 8/32 L6 [In date index] [In thread index]
[First in Thread] [Last in Thread] [Date Next] [Date Prev]
[Next in Thread] [Prev in Thread] [Next Thread] [Prev Thread]

Re: SV: [jox] Licence for articles

The NC clause, like all other copyleft or CC licenses, is just a
subclause added to copyright. If it is added to copyright, as some
suggest, then one has delimited the text in question and excluded any
commercial activity.

A boundary has been set.

However, as Mathieu notes, it can of course be waivered, in cases where
CSPP thinks that commercial action is a good thing (like-minded
projects, for instance, that make some money to keep their project going
by selling something like a magazine, including some text from the
journal). All that is required is a little bit of text added with the
copyright/CC text, stating that of course cool projects can use it for
commercial activity.

On the other hand, if NC is not used, then there is no way that anyone
can prevent someone like Rupert Murdoch using the text. Probably Murdoch
never would anyway, but a signal that the corporate economy is
undesirable has been sent. That's what the NC clause can do: establish a
boundary against corporations and send a signal that their behaviour is
not welcome in this common sphere.

There has been several waves of discussion on this topic on CC-community
( ) over the
years with little resolution, - mostly clouded by rhetoric, dogma and
repetition and little argument.


On 02/06/11 18:45, Johan Söderberg wrote:
Guess I have the tiping vote!

As was already noted before, there is no practical significance to this choice. As with 98% of all CC licensed goods, It is all about self-promotion and sending the right signals. The ideological purist signal that we want to send is to ditch the non-commercial. 
Hence: CC: BY-SA +1 


Från: owner-journal [owner-journal] för Mathieu ONeil [mathieu.oneil]
Skickat: den 2 juni 2011 18:33
Till: journal
Ämne: Re: [jox] Licence for articles

[Converted from multipart/alternative]

[1 text/plain]
Hi all

Um, crossed messages! OK, we have 2:2. I can see both sides.
Sending the strongest message about NC vs. favouring the spread of the licence... I guess we need more input?



----- Original Message -----
From: Stefan Merten <smerten>
Date: Thursday, June 2, 2011 6:22 pm
Subject: Re: [jox] Licence for articles
To: journal

Hi all!

2 hours ago Alex Halavais wrote:
I would make the argument for CC-BY-SA.


NC is an anti-pattern for me. Free Software would not have been
possible with NC - so what should it be good for?



Dr Mathieu O'Neil
Adjunct Research Fellow
Australian Demographic and Social Research Institute
College of Arts and Social Science
The Australian National University
email: mathieu.oneil[at]

[2 text/html]


"...I thought we were an autonomous collective..."

Thread: joxT00515 Message: 8/32 L6 [In date index] [In thread index]
Message 00526 [Homepage] [Navigation]