Talk:Commercial Rights Reserved

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)