![\"\"](\"/assets/images/noncomm.gif\")
NonCommercial NonCommercial nc
\n\n
You let others copy, distribute, display, perform, and (unless you have chosen NoDerivatives)\nmodify and use your work for any purpose other than commercially unless they get your permission first.
\n\n\n
Peter blogged\nabout an issue that recently came up: the role of the Non-Commercial clause\nin Creative Commons licenses. This clause goes\nlike:
\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\nYou let others copy, distribute, display, perform, and (unless you have chosen NoDerivatives)\nmodify and use your work for any purpose other than commercially unless they get your permission first.
\n
\n\n
Originally, I have been tempted to use this clause too, and maybe I forgot to\nremove it here and there, but I agree with Peter that it is better to not use\nthis clause. Peter outlines several of things involved. One important thing\nis indeed that ‘commercial’ use is not well-defined.
\n\nMoreover, one of the arguments outlines “[the NC clauses] are unlikely to increase\nthe potential profit from your work”. I think this is true (I could have said,\n‘I believe this is true’, but that would only introduce unqualified trust):\nthe material already being free to some extend, the material will itself is\nnot-profitable, but the services around would be. But, by making it impossible\nto allow other to set up ‘services’ around the material (education at a high-fee\nuniversity, books, software you sell on CD, a webservice for which you require\nfees for high-volume use, … remember, ‘commercial’ is not well-defined), you\nalso make it impossible to build a community around the material; and as such,\nyou reduce the value of the material, also for yourself. FaceBook would not\nbe what it is right now, without community building (neither would the CDK).
\n\nThese issues are acknowledged by Creative Commons themselves too, and they wrote\nup an interesting report\nlast year about how commercial use is understood. The bottom line is that no\none really knows. I guess. I have not fully read the report yet, but anticipate\nit is a must read. Here is a bit of the executive summary as a teaser:
\n\n\n", "summary": "Peter blogged about an issue that recently came up: the role of the Non-Commercial clause in Creative Commons licenses. This clause goes like:", "date_published": "2010-12-19T00:00:00+00:00", "date_modified": "2010-12-19T00:00:00+00:00", "tags": ["copyright"], "authors": [ { "name": "Egon Willighagen", "url": "https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7542-0286" } ] } ] }The most notable differences among subgroups within each sample of creators and users\nare between creators who make money from their works, and those who do not, and between\nusers who make money from their uses of others’ works, and those who do not. In both\ncases, those who make money generally rate the uses studied less commercial than those\nwho do not make money. The one exception is, again, with respect to personal or\nprivate uses by individuals: users who make money consider these uses more commercial\nthan those who do not make money.
\n