On 2/27/07, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Here's a question. Is it acceptable to put a
non-free licence as an
option if a work is also clearly under a free licence? If so, I might
be suggesting this to a few people and organisations ... there's one
or two I think I could get GFDL-plus-CC-by-nc-nd past ...
[Erik - not just that one, another one I'm speaking to. w00t!]
Because the Creative Commons has issued guidelines for the use of -NC
licenses which suggest that it's perfectly fine to exploit a -NC image
commercial so long as the exploitation is on behalf of a individual or
non-profit, I wouldn't suggest anyone concerned about the commercial
use of their works use -NC as it may not have the desired effect.
(
http://wiki.creativecommons.org/DiscussionDraftNonCommercial_Guidelines)
It's also the case that GFDL + CC-by-nc-nd is generally considered to
be a sign of license confusion.
All that said, we do have people who do exactly as you suggest and
there is probably no reason that we should forbid it in policy beyond
the fact that promoting these non-free licenses is actively against
our own interests. Especially if people use GFDL+CC-By-SA-NC rather
than -NC-ND because we run the risk of someone making a derivative
under Cc-by-sa-nc only thus removing the work from the pool of free
works. (and on this note I'm going to go hunt for folks using
GFDL+CC-by-sa-nc and ask them to change to GFDL + -nc-nd. Never
thought I'd ask someone to use NC-ND!! :) )
Instead I think it's probably more useful to write the following in
the permissions field:
"[GFDL]. Contact [MyNameGoesHere] to obtain alternative licensing in
order to incorporate this work into non-free works."
This is just reemphasizing the GFDL+allrightsreserved which exists for
all works.