+
+
+
+
+
+
I am just starting to think I might want to change my Creative Common’s license from this (suggested by Dann Sheridan):
To this (basicially making someone using "my stuff" for commercial purposes to get my consent first):
Denise Howell is using this:
But that seems too restrictive on sharing of information to me.
Thoughts?
I’ll give you some insight into my thinking around why I chose the type of license I did. I have a lot of ideas in my head. The past few months have been a process of getting some of them out of my head and out into the open. Many of the ideas could make money. Rather than getting wrapped up in the concept of “this is my idea, I own it” — whatever that means — I want to enable people to make money from stuff that comes out of my head when I may never be able to realize a cent from it on my own. I’d like to see my ideas flourish rather than be squashed by trivial discussions of ownership when they may never have seen the light of day to begin with. I would hope to receive inspirational credit, at the very least, or at most be involved in discussions concerning the foundation of a new entity.
LikeLike
I’ve always had mixed feelings about the “no derivs” thing and have flirted with dropping it. But as you say with commercial uses, it just means someone needs to give you the heads up (and you give them the thumbs up) for a derivative work, so I’ve left it in place, also bearing in mind (as is touted on the CC site and in the licenses) that the fair use doctrine applies with full force, so people can quote, comment, and re-use under those parameters without any specific permissions.
LikeLike
Forgot to mention, I dropped the no derivs limitation from the license for my podcasts; they’re all under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/.
LikeLike
I’ll give you some insight into my thinking around why I chose the type of license I did. I have a lot of ideas in my head. The past few months have been a process of getting some of them out of my head and out into the open. Many of the ideas could make money. Rather than getting wrapped up in the concept of “this is my idea, I own it” — whatever that means — I want to enable people to make money from stuff that comes out of my head when I may never be able to realize a cent from it on my own. I’d like to see my ideas flourish rather than be squashed by trivial discussions of ownership when they may never have seen the light of day to begin with. I would hope to receive inspirational credit, at the very least, or at most be involved in discussions concerning the foundation of a new entity.
LikeLike
I’ve always had mixed feelings about the “no derivs” thing and have flirted with dropping it. But as you say with commercial uses, it just means someone needs to give you the heads up (and you give them the thumbs up) for a derivative work, so I’ve left it in place, also bearing in mind (as is touted on the CC site and in the licenses) that the fair use doctrine applies with full force, so people can quote, comment, and re-use under those parameters without any specific permissions.
LikeLike
I’m curious as to why both of you are moving towards or have accepted the non-commercial clause of CC. I see the non-commercial clause in CC as a barrier to innovation and free market dynamics (i.e. ideas and information).
LikeLike
Forgot to mention, I dropped the no derivs limitation from the license for my podcasts; they’re all under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/.
LikeLike
I’m curious as to why both of you are moving towards or have accepted the non-commercial clause of CC. I see the non-commercial clause in CC as a barrier to innovation and free market dynamics (i.e. ideas and information).
LikeLike
I haven’t made a decision yet. Your reasons for why the current licenses is the way it is still appeal to me.
I guess I am a little frustrated with the example in my post (http://sholden.typepad.com/weblog/2005/01/fair_use_of_rss.html) where someone takes a post, puts it on there site, surrounds it with ads, and then gets it ranked in search engines to drive traffic to their site.
LikeLike
I haven’t made a decision yet. Your reasons for why the current licenses is the way it is still appeal to me.
I guess I am a little frustrated with the example in my post (http://sholden.typepad.com/weblog/2005/01/fair_use_of_rss.html) where someone takes a post, puts it on there site, surrounds it with ads, and then gets it ranked in search engines to drive traffic to their site.
LikeLike
Steve Holden's Blog 
Leave a reply to Dann Sheridan Cancel reply