← Back to Op-ed

Discuss this story

My experience is that there should be some middle ground between SA and NC. There are major institutions that cling to NC, because SA is a step too far for them. Charles Matthews (talk) 20:18, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Those are really two different things; I'm not clear on what sort of provision would be considered "middle ground" between them. Powers ^T 11:34, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I didn't say it is obvious: it is one for lawyers to wrestle with. I said there is a clear need. My hope is that a new generation of licenses would recognise that the stark commerce allowed/commerce not allowed binary choice is missing the actual concerns of big players. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:48, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - What are these concerns? Would you recommend allowing some commercial use, but not all? And what does commercial use have to do with the ShareAlike provision? Powers ^T 21:13, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Three questions there, then. First point: for example Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute and British Museum start from NC as default, and their concerns may be different in the two cases, but real. Second point: I just ask if there is a manner in which "accounting standard" rather than "business model" could be used. Third point: Wikimedia recommends CC-by-SA (in effect); if CC-by-NC is in use or the "natural" license for (say) a non-profit, or potential donor to Commons, the case has to be made that SA is an improvement or win-win. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:54, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - CC-by is more free than CC-by-SA, so we as a movement would have no problem with anyone wants to drop the ShareAlike, if they don't like that provision for some reason. As to your first point, you didn't actually explain what these organizations' concerns are; just knowing that they have concerns is not helpful. As to your second point, I don't understand the distinction between "accounting standard" and "business model"; I don't think either term appears in the CC-by license terms. Powers ^T 18:10, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - I think it is "not helpful" to speculate in public about the concerns of major institutions who are in a sense already Wikimedia partners. In fact it is plain bad taste. There are several prominent Wikimedians who works at the Sanger; GLAM relationships with the British Museum mean we can ask them directly any time we want about their licensing policy. You can also research these things if you need to. This is after all just a comments place.
        
        I didn't claim anything about the current CC licenses. I'm simply pursuing a line of thought, since you didn't seem to be following at all a discussion I thought was current. When we say "non-commercial" what do we mean? We tend to mean "not for profit": but banning reuse of material from the BM (say) simply because there is a charge made is not we do (for good reason). Given the size of Web content, a "finding service" for images might be acceptable if it really met the cost of finding, without a high premium. Reuse in printed form where there is a charge for printing costs only is sort of "non-profit" activity. I just have a vague feeling that accountancy and the idea that "profit centres" can be tracked might be an idea that has some legs.
        
        I know that academics tend to think that NC is OK, because there is no money in academic use of anything (to speak of, in most cases). We take a different line, and are right to IMO, but we have to make a clearer argument. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:50, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm not sure what discussion I haven't been following... maybe you could provide a link? I'm afraid the bulk of your response has gone over my head. Either I'm being dense, or you're being confusing, and I'm not sure which. Powers ^T 14:25, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Actually no, not necessarily. CC-by can be worse because we don't want people taking free content and selling it for their own personal gain. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:35, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Why not? Kaldari (talk) 21:17, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        One of our goals is to "Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge" i.e. not stuck behind paywalls... Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 00:18, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        CC-by doesn't allow anyone to sell free content; it allows them to use free content to sell other things. The free content remains free. Powers ^T 14:25, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully this will end the World Health Organizations refusal to move to CC by dealing with their concern that CC holds them to national legal jurisdiction. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (please reply on my talk page) 01:59, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For me the most important goal is improved compatibility with other licenses, namely cc-by-sa with GPL (as discussed on the Mailing list). That would reunite the two biggest pools of copyleft culture and remove the currently existing arbitrary legal barriers between free software and free artwork. Draketo (talk) 19:18, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The main impediments to these licenses being compatible are on the GPL end, not the CC end. That said, copyleft licenses are inherently difficult to make compatible as this is the nature of copyleft (since the licenses must be maintained). Kaldari (talk) 21:23, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]