TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

CC-NC considered harmful

69 点作者 kumarshantanu超过 12 年前

9 条评论

morsch超过 12 年前
ESR argues that CC-NC is problematic because commercial activity is hard to define in strict terms. I agree with this premise, though CC licensing is hardly the only case where we're facing the problem of defining where commercial activity starts.<p>That said, for many authors the choice won't be between CC BY-NC and the more permissive CC BY, it's between CC BY-NC and a non-copyleft license. So we might just end up with less content under a free license. I'm not sure if conceptual purity is worth it.
评论 #4490636 未加载
评论 #4490318 未加载
评论 #4491149 未加载
greggman超过 12 年前
While we're at it they need to remove the morality clause<p><i>In addition to the right of licensors to request removal of their name from the work when used in a derivative or collective they don't like, copyright laws in most jurisdictions around the world (with the notable exception of the US except in very limited circumstances) grant creators "moral rights" which may provide some redress if a derivative work represents a "derogatory treatment" of the licensor's work.</i><p>It effectively makes CC pointless. The whole point of CC is to declare that you don't need to ask the author's permission because he's already given it to you but the moral clause means he really hasn't given you permission and can deny you permission for any reason whatsoever.<p>That effectively makes CC no different as just plain all-rights-reserved where you need to ask.
评论 #4489915 未加载
droithomme超过 12 年前
Arguments that people shouldn't be able to license their own personal creations however they like are anti-freedom.<p>Every year the arguments against artists having any control of their original work get more and more absurd, and more vicious. I may write a story and not mind if people repost it, but I don't want it used to promote Neo-Nazi organizations, so I retain moral rights. Now I am told that doing so is "Orwellian"? Best to avoid all this copyleft stuff altogether given that if you try to retain any rights at all over your own work the groupthinkers will attack you as being a fascist, when it is they who are the true fascists.<p>Only today R.E.M. announced they had a moral objection to Fox News using their work "Losing My Religion" to attack the Democratic Party.<p><a href="http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/earshot/rem-demands-fox-news-stop-losing-my-religion-368710" rel="nofollow">http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/earshot/rem-demands-fox-new...</a><p>Do they have the right to stop Fox from using their work to promote propaganda they are deeply morally opposed to? Probably not, because the US doesn't recognize moral rights of authors and artists as most European nations do. This song is licensed under BMI licensing, which is available to anyone who pays the standard fees. Should we say that R.E.M. are Orwellian fascists who are opposed to free speech because they have publicly announced their displeasure regarding this situation? To do so seems to me to be an insane, crazed position to take, one which attacks the foundations of artistic freedom.
评论 #4490820 未加载
评论 #4490627 未加载
ggchappell超过 12 年前
Is it possible that the real problem is that the CC BY-NC license is not well <i>explained</i>?<p>The actual license (CC BY-NC 3.0 [1]) says, in section 4b:<p>&#62; You may not exercise any of the rights granted to You in Section 3 above [2] in any manner that is primarily intended for or directed toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation. The exchange of the Work for other copyrighted works by means of digital file-sharing or otherwise shall not be considered to be intended for or directed toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation, provided there is no payment of any monetary compensation in connection with the exchange of copyrighted works.<p>This is rather more precise than just saying "noncommercial". I'm not sure whether it's precise enough or not ... but it seemed worth pointing out.<p>[1] <a href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/legalcode" rel="nofollow">https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/legalcode</a><p>[2] These rights are the right to reproduce the work, to create adaptations of it, and to distribute or publicly perform the work or adaptations of it.
lucb1e超过 12 年前
So we're allowing people to make money by using our software without paying, just because it might be confusing when they're making enough money that it's worth it (or even legal) to sue them? No thank you, NC option for me.<p>Not only are they using unpaid manhours and equipment it took to write and host the code, it probably also took a great deal of personal investment to learn how to do whatever the code does. If they are making profit that is fine, but be fair and share a small part. (And yes, I really would ask only a small part or perhaps even only credits – it's open-source after all and they're honest enough to contact me – but that's something entirely different from free.)
confoosed超过 12 年前
Here's what's considered harmful, assuming you actually have concerns about whatever it is you're licensing[1]:<p>using a license that is a cut and paste job (i.e. you took it from the web, or some other source; i.e. it was not drafted for you and your work specifically).<p>1. If you don't really care much about what you're licensing, the license doesn't really matter. Probably 99% of programs fit this category. With "99%" of programs, no one gets wealthy, no one gets sued, the license has no real impact on anything, life goes on as if there had never been a license. And in most cases no one even reads these licenses. Hence things like the "shareware" license, the "beerware", the "dowhatthefuckyouwantto" license, the GPL, "Copyleft", "Ty Coon", and so on. These are mocking the entire practice of licensing. There's a reason for that.<p>And for many years even the ones who do care about licensing, e.g. Microsoft, would have licenses that contained unenforceable terms. But how many Windows users cared about reading a license?<p>If you really cared about licensing your software (e.g. you thought someone might get wealthy from the software, or someone might get sued), then you'd spend a few bucks to have a lawyer draft a license for you, specifically.<p>And if users really cared about the licenses they were agreeing to, they'd probably complain. Because some of the licenses, the terms they contain, are beyond unreasonable. They are so one-sided as to be unenforceable.<p>It's amusing how programmers who post comments on the web are so tuned in to licenses, but in reality they spend little effort/money when it comes to licensing. And that's OK, because with "99%" of software programs, it does not matter. It's irrelevant. No one gets wealthy, no one gets injured, no one sues. It's neither here nor there. Some cut and pasted text that no one reads is good enough.<p>But licenses do make a great subject for programmer chatter on the web. It never stops.<p>Truthfully, in the context of the web, at the end of the day, the license is not nearly as important as whether someone is going to sue. Because if she really wants to sue, and has the means to do so, a copy and pasted license is probably not going to stop her.<p>Food for thought.<p>Public domain.
hollerith超过 12 年前
I am going to go off-topic a little bit and comment on the application of CC and similar licenses to TEXT specifically.<p>Although I am a big fan of open-source licenses for code and open to the possibility that they will do good when applied to photographs, animations and videos, I doubt that applying Creative Commons licenses to TEXT has done more good than harm.<p>Despite efforts by Google to counteract them, I still waste a little time every week or so exploring Google hits that turn out to be SEO spammers re-using Wikipedia's CC-licensed text. And I do not see enough benefits to offset that sort of harm. In general, it seems to me that it harms readers when readers are subjected to text that has been re-used for some purpose that might differ drastically from the purpose or context of the original author of the text. I would prefer it if people who did not make the effort to put something in their own words did not even have the ability to put text onto my computer screen. Of course, there is no way to achieve that, but stopping the CC-licensing of text would cut down on it.<p>Certainly, there needed to be some way to assure contributors to, e.g., Wikipedia that Wikipedia would not monopolize their contributions for selfish or stupid ends, but I do not think a CC license (or the GFDL used before that) was anywhere near the optimal way to do that.<p>Maybe I should not state my opinion without having taken a close look at the effect of CC and similar licenses on textbooks and technical manuals, but I tend to think it is time to stop imploring WRITERS to CC-license their TEXT.
评论 #4490522 未加载
评论 #4495205 未加载
michaelhoffman超过 12 年前
&#62; This ill-definedness is reflected in community debates about whether commercial means “cash transactions” or “for profit”, and it is the exact reason the Open Source Definition forbids open-source software licenses from having such restrictions.<p>I just don't particularly care about enabling people to use my work gratis for “cash transactions” <i>or</i> “for profit”. These people can contact me for a paid license. Or they can create a substitute themselves, no skin off my back.
danso超过 12 年前
I agree that NC is confusing but I put it on all my Flickr photos that I share. If someone asks me for permission to print in a commercial context, I usually grant it, but here's why I do NC:<p>1) If it's a company that has money and is all to ready to give me some, I'll gladly take it.<p>2) If it's someone, such as an author who wants a photo to illustrate their book, I may not ask for money but I like knowing who is using my photo in that context.<p>3) I know I'm not at fault if someone misinterprets CC as "the original photographer acquired the rights to use the identifiable people in any commercial contexts", but I still want to avoid as much as possible being drawn into this kind of snafu: <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/news/technology/virgin-sued-for-using-teens-photo/2007/09/21/1189881735928.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.smh.com.au/news/technology/virgin-sued-for-using-...</a>
评论 #4490887 未加载