This might not apply so much to photos of loved ones, but the confusion caused by NC does. If I want to build something like the Internet Archive, do I have a right to host NC contents from outside sources, or not? Do I have to change my organizational structure to do so? What if the work is not a personal photo, but a work of art, or a book by Cory Doctorow?

Of course you can upload NC content to the internet archive. The Internet archive is clearly a noncommercial site, and if a judge rules against that, I’ll eat my hat.

You fundamentalist freehadis on this “freehad” against NC and ND conditions have to understand that not everyone is like you. Also, you have to understand that there IS a precedent in law for what constitutes as “commercial”, or else we wouldn’t have trademark law.

Try THIS experiment: Don’t put NC in 4.0, and get your new data from whether the free culture commons GROWS, or find out how many people cling to 3.0 when non-free culture isn’t on equal footing with an ACTUAL commons license. But if the “stakeholders” aren’t up for it, (heck, I thought it was our culture at stake) then we can count on CC to do as little as possible, and prove its long-suspected inability to stand for anything. Good luck with that.

I know for a fact that I will stick with © if CC ever deprecates the NC or ND just to satisfy the zeal of the freehadis.

Look freehadis, if you really want free culture, we have to change copyright. Then LET’S HAVE THAT DEBATE! Getting rid of the NC and ND CC options will likely drive people away of creative commons for people who want them, and there is a demand for them. There wasn’t a demand for the licenses that were deprecated. I’ll be damned if I let a tyrannical and vocal minority hell-bent on imposing their Orwellian definition of “freedom” on the rest of us have their way.

You freehadis are no better than the MPAA. I’m dead serious when I say that.

First of all, he thinks “open source” is a system of exploitation, when it’s a system of sharing. The support that (at least, “Copyleft” or “Share-alike”, and very arguably also “permissive”) libre licenses draw from commercial ventures is substantial. It also provides protection from one-sided sharing (if not from the nature of the license, than from the choice to go with vendors who “give back” more, as in the case of khtml/webkit. Not a fan of Apple, but giving credit where due.)

This might not apply so much to photos of loved ones, but the confusion caused by NC does. If I want to build something like the Internet Archive, do I have a right to host NC contents from outside sources, or not? Do I have to change my organizational structure to do so? What if the work is not a personal photo, but a work of art, or a book by Cory Doctorow?

NC never results in the kind of simplified access Creative Commons was established to provide. It lends itself to the very Permission Culture expansion that runs right over us with censorship. If you have a personal photo of family, you might be better off with “All Rights Reserved” than NC, because by choosing an NC license (any license with the -NC- clause) you help make CC a wishy-washy, “We can’t tell you, let us ask our lawyers” kind of half-solution that people CANNOT possibly understand, at least Overton can’t, and more informed experts aren’t certain either.

NC was an experiment, a quest for data and for understanding the public. Now you understand, CC, how hopeless it is. If it is deprecated, Overton can still use it. If it is not deprecated, CC will eventually be shunned (regardless of its massive collection) for something less confusing. CC is half of what it could be for clinging to licenses just as problematic and rift-creating (A deeply fragmented commons is still a “commons,” you say? Not half so much…) as the SAMPLING+ license. How many people want to go back to that piece of junk?

Try THIS experiment: Don’t put NC in 4.0, and get your new data from whether the free culture commons GROWS, or find out how many people cling to 3.0 when non-free culture isn’t on equal footing with an ACTUAL commons license. But if the “stakeholders” aren’t up for it, (heck, I thought it was our culture at stake) then we can count on CC to do as little as possible, and prove its long-suspected inability to stand for anything. Good luck with that.

Similarly I do not want the photography that I do exploited by Capitalist corporations like Monsanto, or to find some landscape photograph used in an advert for Royal Dutch Shell, or a bug photograph used by Rentokil.

So I’ll use CC-NC thank you very much and should there never by a NC version 5 or whatever well I’ll just stay with what we have. Eric and david Gerard carray on finding some teenage kids to exploit for their various projects.

The fact that the open source community cannot agree on whether NC means “no cash transactions” or “no sales for profit” is a problem, but the right answer is not to get rid of it, but to nail down what it means (or possibly to define additional versions of the license, so that both answers are available to content owners).

Wasn’t the whole purpose of CC’s existence to remove such ambiguities, so that owners could distribute their works without having to worry about how some “creative” lawyer would interpret the license?

The academic community right now is urgently debating Open Access. CC licences are used. We need to take the majority of academics along with us, and enable them to share their important work with the extra reassurance that -NC and -ND provide. One day, the Open Access movement will reach its logical conclusion of full copyleft licensing. But please DO NOT BURN THE BRIDGES that will take us there.

Let me give a very simple example, a hobby photographer works for company A, but loves to take pictures. He puts them up for others to use, and puts a CC license on them that isn’t a -NC licenese, say a CC-BY-SA. Company B sees the image, thinks it is a great shot and would work perfect in their new marketing campaign for their product X. The design the add, follow all the rules of the CC (attribute me, and allow others the use, after all, this is a 1-4month add for them). So now some bigwig at Company A sees the add for competitor Company B, sees that one of his employees provided the image. Now the photographer faces loosing his job for violating the standards of business conduct (anti-compete). All OK by the laws of most states. Even if he manages to keep his job, he has a mark on him from corporate.

So, if you remove these options, you remove my options to share. The only other options are for me to come up with my own license, or lock my work up. I would think many who are employees of a major corporation have this issue. So the question becomes, does the CC want hobbiest to participate, or are you good losing the support.