On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 7:52 AM, Andrew Gray <andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk> wrote:
2009/9/15 Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org>rg>:
> On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 5:39 AM, Hay (Husky) <huskyr(a)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