Difference between revisions of "Talk:Commercial Rights Reserved"
G. Hagedorn (talk | contribs) |
|||
| (3 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Pro the proposal: The proposal is meant to reduce the attractiveness of the non-free NC licenses. NC licenses are incompatible with free licenses and the uninformed choice of these licenses creates problems for free culture projects. NC licenses are not in the yellow, they are in the red spectrum of a free to non-free CC license spectrum (visualized e.g. [http://foter.com/blog/files/2012/11/Foter.com_infographic_CC.jpg here]). The argument giving against this change, that some people may be confused and may require further information (which of course may fail to reach some), is really an argument in favor of the change: Communication and learning about the true function of the NC licenses (i.e. protecting commercial income from works, not building a "non-commercial-commons") is at the heart of the proposed name change. The effects of this communication will of course be delayed by sites that do not immediately update their license chooser, but a delay is better than perpetuation of the current situation. --[[User:G. Hagedorn|G. Hagedorn]] ([[User talk:G. Hagedorn|talk]]) 08:27, 7 December 2012 (UTC) | Pro the proposal: The proposal is meant to reduce the attractiveness of the non-free NC licenses. NC licenses are incompatible with free licenses and the uninformed choice of these licenses creates problems for free culture projects. NC licenses are not in the yellow, they are in the red spectrum of a free to non-free CC license spectrum (visualized e.g. [http://foter.com/blog/files/2012/11/Foter.com_infographic_CC.jpg here]). The argument giving against this change, that some people may be confused and may require further information (which of course may fail to reach some), is really an argument in favor of the change: Communication and learning about the true function of the NC licenses (i.e. protecting commercial income from works, not building a "non-commercial-commons") is at the heart of the proposed name change. The effects of this communication will of course be delayed by sites that do not immediately update their license chooser, but a delay is better than perpetuation of the current situation. --[[User:G. Hagedorn|G. Hagedorn]] ([[User talk:G. Hagedorn|talk]]) 08:27, 7 December 2012 (UTC) | ||
| + | * I agree with the name change, and I concur with Gregor that the need to educate about the name change is actually a plus, as it provides an opportunity to reach out to the actual and potential users of NC/CRR licenses or NC/CRR-licensed materials and to clarify what this license module actually means. --[[User:Daniel Mietchen|Daniel Mietchen]] ([[User talk:Daniel Mietchen|talk]]) 20:47, 7 December 2012 (UTC) | ||
| + | * I agree with everything Gregor said. This seems like the right step to take. --[[User:Lydia Pintscher|Lydia Pintscher]] ([[User talk:Lydia Pintscher|talk]]) 16:34, 8 December 2012 (UTC) | ||
| + | * I think rather strongly that this wouldn't make it better. "Commercial Rights Reserved" is legalese. I would much rather go with something like "Commercial Reuse Disallowed" which is completely unambiguous. As someone that has to explain these licenses to people (I'm Wikipedia OTRS cleared and work at Wikimedia Commons), I'm against swapping one surprisingly difficult to explain moniker for another difficult to explain moniker. Since I seriously doubt that this is going to happen, if for no other reason than that I'm so late into the game, I'd rather keep NC because I don't want to have to explain a largely aesthetic change to the people that are bound to come and ask about it. [[User:Sven Manguard|Sven Manguard]] ([[User talk:Sven Manguard|talk]]) 17:49, 8 December 2012 (UTC) | ||
| + | * I agree with the name change to Commercial Rights Reserved precisely because it might better reflect the 'legalese'... and hopefully, over time, licence compliance by reducing its misapplication. However, at the same time, I think there's a need to develop some practical and substantive examples of interoperable CC Plus licences to simplify commercial use.[User: Pindar Wong 12:12, 12 12 2012 ;) ] | ||
Latest revision as of 04:47, 12 December 2012
Pro the proposal: The proposal is meant to reduce the attractiveness of the non-free NC licenses. NC licenses are incompatible with free licenses and the uninformed choice of these licenses creates problems for free culture projects. NC licenses are not in the yellow, they are in the red spectrum of a free to non-free CC license spectrum (visualized e.g. here). The argument giving against this change, that some people may be confused and may require further information (which of course may fail to reach some), is really an argument in favor of the change: Communication and learning about the true function of the NC licenses (i.e. protecting commercial income from works, not building a "non-commercial-commons") is at the heart of the proposed name change. The effects of this communication will of course be delayed by sites that do not immediately update their license chooser, but a delay is better than perpetuation of the current situation. --G. Hagedorn (talk) 08:27, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with the name change, and I concur with Gregor that the need to educate about the name change is actually a plus, as it provides an opportunity to reach out to the actual and potential users of NC/CRR licenses or NC/CRR-licensed materials and to clarify what this license module actually means. --Daniel Mietchen (talk) 20:47, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with everything Gregor said. This seems like the right step to take. --Lydia Pintscher (talk) 16:34, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
- I think rather strongly that this wouldn't make it better. "Commercial Rights Reserved" is legalese. I would much rather go with something like "Commercial Reuse Disallowed" which is completely unambiguous. As someone that has to explain these licenses to people (I'm Wikipedia OTRS cleared and work at Wikimedia Commons), I'm against swapping one surprisingly difficult to explain moniker for another difficult to explain moniker. Since I seriously doubt that this is going to happen, if for no other reason than that I'm so late into the game, I'd rather keep NC because I don't want to have to explain a largely aesthetic change to the people that are bound to come and ask about it. Sven Manguard (talk) 17:49, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with the name change to Commercial Rights Reserved precisely because it might better reflect the 'legalese'... and hopefully, over time, licence compliance by reducing its misapplication. However, at the same time, I think there's a need to develop some practical and substantive examples of interoperable CC Plus licences to simplify commercial use.[User: Pindar Wong 12:12, 12 12 2012 ;) ]
