On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 7:52 AM, Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk wrote:
2009/9/15 Anthony wikimail@inbox.org:
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 5:39 AM, Hay (Husky) huskyr@gmail.com wrote:
with its 255 pages this might be something that you would rather like to skim through instead of fully read :)
Anything to disrupt my view that the NC licenses suck because it's unclear what they mean?
Probably not.
Not a view I disagree with, personally!
One interesting example the blog post brings up - a nonprofit-with-ads, paying for hosting costs that way, is that commercial? 60% of creators say it is non-commercial, whilst *70%* of reusers think so - which really does begin to sound like a recipe for unintentionally annoying a lot of people releasing material under the license.
It's not that bad. What you see is a scale where 1=noncommercial and 100=commercial, and creators rated the case you mention 59.2 on that scale, users 71.7 -- so creators see that case as less commercial than users, which is ideal if fewer disputes are a good outcome (and as far as I know there aren't many).
Of course one of the ways disputes are avoided is that users just avoid NC licensed content, as Wikimedia projects do. Kudos.
Mike