[AktiviX] copyright configuration: licensing commercial use?
mp at fsc.cc
Wed Jun 30 18:50:11 UTC 2004
On Wed, 2004-06-30 at 18:18, cc at riseup.net wrote:
> On Wed 30-Jun-2004 at 01:23:32PM +0100, mp wrote:
> > But, generally you prefer to let Bush, Murdoch and
> > Branson have FREE use of the work that we create?
> Do you really think that they would want to use material
> off our wiki?
haha, ;-) ... of course not. I took this to be a principled discussion.
> If, for example, Murdoch did want to publish a page from
> the AktiviX wiki in one of his newspapers and did comply
> with the CC terms what would be the problem?
Probably not a problem. And perhaps you have convinced me that for
practical purposes, in this context, your suggestion is the better;
however i do think that it in that case would make sense to include an
introduction to the principal differences as they been expressed in our
sentiments here: stuff under this license can be used by Murdoch without
paying us a single cent, because we beleive that it is a good thing if
he does so, or because it is easier and whatever else we can come up
with. I say so because I imagine that it is a sensitive issue to some
activists (if their stuff in principle could be used by those who have
so much and don't share..... is attribution enough?)
> However, I don't expect this to happen!
Obviously not, but as we have seen Indymedia is more and more popular
with academis and journalists, and so is Free Software.
> A more realistic example would be if someone wanted to
> reproduce stuff off the site for a pamphlet on free
yes. Like IBM.
> A concrete example of something like this is the Indymedia
> Handbook which is mostly from stuff from the IMC wiki
I wouldn't really call this an example of commercial use, but rather a
> If we use a license that does not allow commercial use
> then the person putting together a pamphlet would not be
> allowed to sell it, which would be bad because it could
> mean that it wouldn't even get produced :-/
What does commercial use mean then? Doesn't it mean FOR PROFIT also? Or
does it mean just to sell it (even at production cost)? Or does it refer
to a more specific activity and a particular (capitalist) business
In other words:
Does it mean both (i) that IBM could not sell it, and (ii) that a local
collective or cooperative, which is a friendly not-for-profit, such as
Seeds For Change, could also not sell it, although their activities is
qualitatively different than that of IBM? What control do we have over
Perhaps what i am getting at here is rather a discussion about the
taxonomy of CC licenses in general and not our particular case. I will
ask CC about this issue.
In any case, I think that I tend to agree with you that there is a lot
to be said for letting all use be allowed for two reasons: (i) nothing
will be of a quality/content that will attract Murdoch (however IBM
might just find something for a marketing leaflet!); (ii) it is easier
and much more permissive, thus easier to deal with.
> Martin suggests that for some cases we could change the
> terms of the license -- but to do this we would have to
> contect everyone who contributed to ask their permission
> and they would all have a veto over changing it and if
> someone was not contactable then we would be stuffed and
> couldn't change the license.
Unless it is stipulated that stuff licensed here can be "sold" for
commercial purposes through a swift consensus decision making process,
such as a 2-3 day process on this (or another) list (similar to an
Indymedia feature based on newswire postings).
> For more on the Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0
> And for the one I prefer, the Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0
> I'd be interested in hearing what others think about
> this... Bunny? Nick?
Me too. As I said in last email: I think this is an interesting
discussion and involves a tension between the traditional process of
"recuperation" versus some sort of fast/wider and easier spread of a new
More information about the AktiviX-discuss