Message 00530 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: joxT00515 Message: 9/32 L7 [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

First of all, this isn't something I have a strong feeling about. I am
a fan of CC (for reasons that we could get into but I won't), but many
of the things I produce are actually NC for some of the reasons
several of you have noted. That said, I think there are good reasons
to ditch the NC, as I've noted.

I would advise against NC-unless-you're-cool. If we're going to do
that, we might as well do (c)-unless-you're-cool. The CC license is
intended to make it clear and easy and explicitly *not* have to ask.
So, when I want to use the article in my university course (at a
private, non-worker-owned, but not-for-profit university), I have to
ask myself, am I cool enough? Or do I have to ask permission? When I
teach a fee-based course at p2pu in a couple of years, I have to ask
myself the same question.

(In practice, I wouldn't ask at all; I would assume "fair use" in the
US and wait to be sued. But that's beside the point.)

Likewise, there are plenty of non-commercial people out there who are
not very cool, and I'm fine with them spreading the work.

If someone adds value to the work and wants to make a profit doing so,
I'm also OK with that. A small group decides to audio record the work
and sell it for a reasonable fee--have at it. If someone thinks that
fee is unreasonable, they can create their own for a more reasonable
fee (or for free). Of course, because of SA, others could then
distribute it for free. Because the good is essentially non-exclusive,
the means of exploitation are significantly reduced...

There are some other options: author chooses the license. I like this,
though it makes things a little muddier since there isn't a blanket
license. Some authors may choose to place it fully in the public
domain, others might choose a CC license or some other public license,
and others might wish to give CSPP a non-exclusive license by
otherwise retain copyright...



On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 1:08 PM, jmp <m.pedersen> wrote:

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] f&#246;r 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..."

// This email is
// [x] assumed public and may be blogged / forwarded.
// [ ] assumed to be private, please ask before redistributing.
// Alexander C. Halavais, ciberflâneur

Thread: joxT00515 Message: 9/32 L7 [In date index] [In thread index]
Message 00530 [Homepage] [Navigation]