Comments on: Why I and you should avoid NC licences

By: Commercial Exploitation of Content and the Instagram Story « UK Web Focus

Commercial Exploitation of Content and the Instagram Story « UK Web Focus — Thu, 20 Dec 2012 08:01:40 +0000

[...] The BY-NC-SA licence was chosen [in 2005] as it seemed at the time to provide a safe option, allowing the resources to be reused by others in the sector whilst retaining the right to commercially exploit the resources. In reality, however, the resources haven’t been exploited commercially and increasingly the sector is becoming aware of the difficulties in licensing resources which excludes commercial use, as described by Peter Murray-Rust in a recent post on “Why I and you should avoid NC licence“. [...]

By: A visualization of Gold Open Access options - Ross Mounce

A visualization of Gold Open Access options - Ross Mounce — Thu, 30 Aug 2012 14:53:48 +0000

[...] [2] Murray-Rust, P. 2010 http://blogs.ch.cam.ac.uk/pmr/2010/12/17/why-i-and-you-should-avoid-nc-licences/ [...]

By: Panton Fellowship updates: May (month 2) - Metacladistics

Panton Fellowship updates: May (month 2) - Metacladistics — Thu, 07 Jun 2012 12:32:21 +0000

[...] Then on the 11th of May, PMR came Bath to give a talk to our Biology & Biochemistry Department. Those who came (including our subject librarian – thanks for coming!) were wowed with the ways in which PMR and colleagues have helped make semantically-enriched Linked Open Data available on chemicals for everyone, not just academic chemists! It’s brilliant to have an expert demonstration of the ways in which projects like CrystalEye have made the data underlying some chemical research publications far more easily searchable, open, and re-usable across many thousands of publications. There’s a strong, easily-justified need for more of this type of post-publication data scraping in biology (and palaeontology I might add!). We share a strong belief that research publications should be made open and explicitly re-usable without restriction. [...]

By: Panton Fellowship updates: May (month 2) | Palaeophylophenomics

Panton Fellowship updates: May (month 2) | Palaeophylophenomics — Mon, 28 May 2012 00:38:19 +0000

By: pm286

pm286 — Wed, 02 Feb 2011 08:28:15 +0000

>>The problem with using non-NC licenses for some kinds of content is that it can create competitors.
Agreed. There is nothing wrong with creating software that is sold. But if you licence it as NC then you are neither in the spirit of F/OSS or Open Data.

>>In cases where the IP is not a competitive advantage then sharing is the best approach (BY-CC). We have some work that we author and copyright precisely to create revenue.
Nothing wrong. But don’t use NC. It’s effectively unworkable and creates huge amounts of wasted time for exactly the people that you might like to benefit from it.

>>Otherwise it is miserly to do so. As per the comment on permission, we agree. We have always provided permission when asked.

Asking persmission is fine. But it’s effectively not Open. The effort in asking permission – particularly when there are thousands of items as in papers pr data sets – can be enormous. It solves nothing. The grantees cannot effectively re-use the material.

By: Lanna Innovation

Lanna Innovation — Wed, 02 Feb 2011 03:22:20 +0000

The problem with using non-NC licenses for some kinds of content is that it can create competitors. In cases where the IP is not a competitive advantage then sharing is the best approach (BY-CC). We have some work that we author and copyright precisely to create revenue. Otherwise it is miserly to do so. As per the comment on permission, we agree. We have always provided permission when asked.

By: pm286

pm286 — Tue, 04 Jan 2011 13:26:41 +0000

Commercial organizations cannot prevent people having access to the free content. If you create version A1 and a commercial copies it to A2 and restricts it then the world can still use A1. If they enhance A2 to B2 then they are welcome to and if it’s perceived as “better” than A1 then that is their right. You challenge that by making a C1 which is better than B2, not by restricting them. I don’t see what you have lost by removing NC. It CANNOT affect your work.

By: Stephen Downes

Stephen Downes — Sat, 01 Jan 2011 16:14:28 +0000

I use the NC clause in all my work, and my motivation, rather than the straw man argument typically presented by pro-commercialization arguments, is very pragmatic: I do not want people to restrict access to my work.

The point here is, when people ‘commercialize’ content, such as my writing, what they are doing is making money by charging for access to the work. This means that, if someone does not pay them money, they will deny that person access to the work. This is wrong. This is not what is meant by ‘free’.

By: Non-Commercial Use Restriction Removed From This Blog « UK Web Focus

Non-Commercial Use Restriction Removed From This Blog « UK Web Focus — Sat, 01 Jan 2011 12:31:52 +0000

[...] The BY-NC-SA licence was chosen as it seemed at the time to provide a safe option, allowing the resources to be reused by others in the sector whilst retaining the right to commercially exploit the resources.In reality, however, the resources haven’t been exploited commercially and increasingly the sector is becoming aware of the difficulties in licensing resources which excludes commercial use, as described by Peter Murray-Rust in a recent post on “Why I and you should avoid NC licence“. [...]

By: Gordon Haff

Gordon Haff — Wed, 22 Dec 2010 17:01:30 +0000

Speaking for myself, I’m very careful to use only CC licensed photos/graphics for commercial use when I give presentations for my company. In theory, I could ask for permission with other material, but unless there were something that was just *perfect*, I just tend to use something els. And, if I’m going to pay anyway, microstock is often the better route.