Opening the Special Library: Open Source, Open Content, Open Data and More

The definition and future of noncommercial

Mike LinksvayerCreative Commons2011-09-17

We did a study of NC back in 2009, found licensors say they are somewhat liberal in expectations of what licensees will do, licensees say they are somewhat conservative in interpreting what they have permission to do; these help explain lack of disputes, form good practices for using (or not) NC

Long term (slow) trend toward lower NC proportion of total license use; maybe NC does work as gateway to more substantial openness

Conservative users such as traditional publishers and collecting societies continue to experiment with NC

All this indicates NC working, easy conclusion for 4.0: (0) dont change anything about NC

However, 4.0 is a once-in-a-decade-or-more (we hope) opportunity; such an important part of the license suite must receive more scrutiny, range of options explored

Small disputes and misunderstandings about NC are all over, just rarely valuable enough to go to court?

Lack of well understood definition harmful to reputation of CC? How many times have I heard nobody knows what it means Many.

Flexible definition barrier to conservative use, want to not use or define restrictively

Still CC NC sounds appealing, probably overused by those without existing revenue stream to protect

Many arguments against using NC well known, not reviewed here; see http://freedomdefined.org/Licenses/NC

NC problematic from commons license steward perspective:

Built-in non-interoperability among licenses in CC suite

Under-use of non-NC licenses, which realize far more value (projects rely on free licenses to exist; making available online doesnt require a public license)

For (the commons)

would be far less problematic if noncommercial (any definition) sharing not restricted; push that norm

For (against commerce)

Exclude commerce from society; prevent exploitation

For (commerce)

Promise to not persecute fans, but protect some traditional proprietary licensing revenues

For (choice)

CC doesnt know what freedom means in various communities, which need to discover such for themselves; artists might think noncommercial is correct for them

re communities

Free software didnt immediately arrive at any use, any user confusion about price and freedom, Linux first released under NC termsOA, OER, PSI, others converging on similar (excluding NC) definitionsPossible any use, any user a sweet spot for intellectual commons, for all communities

Provocative alternatives to status quo for 4.0

(1) Dont version NC licenses, eventually hide option from chooser, formally retire

(2) Drop BY-NC-SA and BY-NC-ND to simplify suite

(3) Support NC licenses, but rebrand as something other than CC; move to non-creativecommons.org domain would be strongest

(4) Clarify definition of NC (e.g., match conservative user wish; pointed out earlier more thorough definition in license could be useful for global license)

(1) Dont version NC licenses, eventually hide option from chooser, formally retire(2) Drop BY-NC-SA and BY-NC-ND to simplify suite

(1) has been much requested, discussed, but never terribly actionable; should it become something discussed in serious company?

(3) Support NC licenses, but rebrand as something other than CC; move to non-creativecommons.org domain would be strongest(4) Clarify definition of NC (e.g., match conservative user wish; pointed out earlier more thorough definition in license could be useful for global license)(3) and (4) increase the range of suite (covering more restrictive ground), differentiation within suite (branding and legal), and clarity

Pros & cons

Non-exhaustive

Most have flipside

Commons

Pro: address (and/or further leverage) incompatibility

Con: dilute inclusiveness of brand

Licensors and licensees

Pro: increase certainty

Con: cost for/resistance from existing NC users

4.0 is a once-in-a-decade-or-more (we hope) opportunity; such an important part of the license suite must receive more scrutiny, range of options explored

discuss

Creative Commons works at year end% fully free/libre/open and % portedTotalFree %Ported %

20039432920.2214998112991520

200445415860.2227525802660130.0791

2005158224080.2761866588195680.1322

2006507940480.2418511712238410.1397

20071375648070.2909184977811950.205

20082149704260.3184621869800830.2093

20093367715490.4066213473395280.1802

20104076792660.3926240291062530.1734

2011-094323465600.392588813474080.1652

License property use at year endNC %ND %SA %

20030.6993062593555340.290768924150740.497499183709816

20040.7196582867747080.3190999796106470.480858889383577

20050.6901702951914780.2795967592290630.520624294355196

20060.7285215976486060.3137690660134040.431343825953781

20070.676018169385430.3285857188750320.396249878066561

20080.6449790121363020.3138682946090450.393484725196572

20090.55342173515970.2607790927136780.447734645185244

20100.5665296674665810.2661301862724610.44883670880628

2011-090.561424078405990.2727895140416980.470859321744112