3 ms·

> Even defining in terms of "non-profits" in US tax code doesn't really help Yup, "non-profit" does not mean that an entity is not allowed to make a profit. Al

> Even defining in terms of "non-profits" in US tax code doesn't really help Yup, "non-profit" does not mean that an entity is not allowed to make a profit. All it means is that it cannot distribute that to shareholders in the form of dividends. In other words you cannot buy stock in a nonprofit and entitle yourself to distributions of its profits. (And while it wasn't addressed in the article, being an arm or entity of the state works the same way. Government agencies and nationalized corporations are just as capable of pursuing and making a profit as for-profit corporations in the private sector.) "Noncommercial" is a terrible idea that gets even worse the more you look at it. All "profit" means is that you're creating something (the output) that's more valuable (to some other entity) than what you started with (your inputs, which include your time/effort and the opportunity cost of whatever else you could have done with those resources). So prohibiting profits is, literally, prohibiting somebody from improving the licensed work in any capacity. You might as well say, "You are free to use this work, but you cannot benefit from it in any way". Furthermore, as you mention, commerce is everywhere. Nearly every interaction between two beings can be deemed related to "commerce"[0] in some capacity. If you're trying to prevent commercial activity, why bother using a CC license in the first place? [0] We have half a century of consecutive SCOTUS rulings - from Wickard v. Filburn to United States v. Lopez telling us exactly that.

ghaff 10y ago
And probably my biggest objection is that it's such a seductive feel good license--bathe in the glow that comes from contributing to the commons without worrying that $EVIL_CORP might (horrors!) make money off your work--that it's really a very natural license for people who haven't thought about the issues to pick. Non-derivative has problems too. I find it somewhat ironic that CC partly has its roots in the idea of remix culture, which ND doesn't allow. OTOH, I see reasonable arguments to be made with some types of works for preserving whatever original artistic vision went into their creation.
- JoshTriplett 10y ago
  > OTOH, I see reasonable arguments to be made with some types of works for preserving whatever original artistic vision went into their creation. That's what requirements to clearly label modified versions as modified are for: so that you know whether you have the original or not, and where to find the original if you want the original.
  - ghaff 10y ago
    Oh, I'm not really prepared to make a strong defense of No Derivatives if only because it seems counter to the remix spirit of Creative Commons. >requirements to clearly label modified versions Though, to be fair, CC labeling and attribution generally is a bit fraught with practical issues. Media like photos used in presentations etc. can easily get separated from associated metadata. To be clear, I try to be careful when I use CC content but I'm sure that I mess up from time to time because it ends up being a pretty manual process.

ghaff 10y ago

And probably my biggest objection is that it's such a seductive feel good license--bathe in the glow that comes from contributing to the commons without worrying that $EVIL_CORP might (horrors!) make money off your work--that it's really a very natural license for people who haven't thought about the issues to pick. Non-derivative has problems too. I find it somewhat ironic that CC partly has its roots in the idea of remix culture, which ND doesn't allow. OTOH, I see reasonable arguments to be made with some types of works for preserving whatever original artistic vision went into their creation.

JoshTriplett 10y ago
> OTOH, I see reasonable arguments to be made with some types of works for preserving whatever original artistic vision went into their creation. That's what requirements to clearly label modified versions as modified are for: so that you know whether you have the original or not, and where to find the original if you want the original.
- ghaff 10y ago
  Oh, I'm not really prepared to make a strong defense of No Derivatives if only because it seems counter to the remix spirit of Creative Commons. >requirements to clearly label modified versions Though, to be fair, CC labeling and attribution generally is a bit fraught with practical issues. Media like photos used in presentations etc. can easily get separated from associated metadata. To be clear, I try to be careful when I use CC content but I'm sure that I mess up from time to time because it ends up being a pretty manual process.