Difference between revisions of "Talk:NC ND discussion"
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
I can second what is said above, in that the license chooser and changes made to it only reach a quite limited number of people while content hosters plus other informal propagation mechanisms reach the majority of actual and potential CC licensors. Maybe CC should pro-actively approach the leading CC implementing sites and push them to highlight more the non-free aspects of NC licenses. Regarding the NC wording itself, which will most probably stick with the well-established definition (which I support), it's worth investigating whether an explicit exclusion like the one regarding file sharing should be added for all uses by entities that are mainly funded by public money. This would instantly eliminate a large chunk of the grey area around NC's meaning. In turn this would lead to less valid criticism regarding the wording and would make all NC licenses "less non-free" as it would allow the respective content to be used in all sorts of public settings. --[[User:Jhweitzmann|Jhweitzmann]] ([[User talk:Jhweitzmann|talk]]) 08:55, 18 December 2012 (UTC) | I can second what is said above, in that the license chooser and changes made to it only reach a quite limited number of people while content hosters plus other informal propagation mechanisms reach the majority of actual and potential CC licensors. Maybe CC should pro-actively approach the leading CC implementing sites and push them to highlight more the non-free aspects of NC licenses. Regarding the NC wording itself, which will most probably stick with the well-established definition (which I support), it's worth investigating whether an explicit exclusion like the one regarding file sharing should be added for all uses by entities that are mainly funded by public money. This would instantly eliminate a large chunk of the grey area around NC's meaning. In turn this would lead to less valid criticism regarding the wording and would make all NC licenses "less non-free" as it would allow the respective content to be used in all sorts of public settings. --[[User:Jhweitzmann|Jhweitzmann]] ([[User talk:Jhweitzmann|talk]]) 08:55, 18 December 2012 (UTC) | ||
| − | why not announce | + | why not announce this to be the last revision of the non-free licenses? |
that way cc would maintain it's credibility as a license steward | that way cc would maintain it's credibility as a license steward | ||
| + | --[[User:Passstab|Passstab]] ([[User talk:Passstab|talk]]) 20:00, 9 January 2013 (UTC) | ||
Latest revision as of 20:00, 9 January 2013
While the deeds and license chooser is a valuable tool it is integrated on few tools. Most CC license application occurs through external license chooser (youtube, flickr, etc.). For example flickr which suggests None as first choice, BY-NC-SA as second, two other NC follow, the free licenses BY and BY-SA are 5th and 6th in a list of 7. Many more license application on websites occur by imitating the license chosen by peers. Conclusion: changes to the deeds and license chooser (as well as other supporting communication on the CC web pages) will reach only a very limited audience. A large part of this audience are insiders involved in CC. Any action that desires to encourage free licenses over non-free ones should concentrate on how a larger proportion of the majority of licensors can be reached. --G. Hagedorn (talk) 07:49, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
I can second what is said above, in that the license chooser and changes made to it only reach a quite limited number of people while content hosters plus other informal propagation mechanisms reach the majority of actual and potential CC licensors. Maybe CC should pro-actively approach the leading CC implementing sites and push them to highlight more the non-free aspects of NC licenses. Regarding the NC wording itself, which will most probably stick with the well-established definition (which I support), it's worth investigating whether an explicit exclusion like the one regarding file sharing should be added for all uses by entities that are mainly funded by public money. This would instantly eliminate a large chunk of the grey area around NC's meaning. In turn this would lead to less valid criticism regarding the wording and would make all NC licenses "less non-free" as it would allow the respective content to be used in all sorts of public settings. --Jhweitzmann (talk) 08:55, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
why not announce this to be the last revision of the non-free licenses? that way cc would maintain it's credibility as a license steward --Passstab (talk) 20:00, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
