[Foundation-l] Creative Commons publishes report on defining "Non-commercial"

[Mike Linksvayer]

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