Talk:The non-commercial provision obfuscates intent
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Where this essay came from
- Thanks. This complements m:Free knowledge based on Creative Commons licenses which tries to help people understand what's their intent. (You don't want to sell your work? Then you don't need to put NC on it.)
- I wonder if, for the sake of argument, we can find some example where the NC does not obfuscate intent compared to other options. What are the most legit uses of NC currently? Maybe some movies? https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/Filmmaker Nemo bis (talk) 08:03, 9 July 2020 (CEST)
- Thanks Nemo_bis. (I had missed that essay; from the edit history, it appears it's a fork of a work by P. Klimpel. I wonder if it would make sense to give some info about its provenance, e.g. in a header.)
- I decided to create this as a separate essay for two reasons:
- I was unsuccessful at stimulating discussion at Talk:Licenses/NC, and for 8 years I allowed the difficulty of weaving this into the existing narrative stall the process of just stating it;
- I often find myself wanting to link to this concept in email, wiki, or social media discussions; so a "bite-sized" expression of this concept seems desirable.
- Erik Möller has made a similar, valid point, that the existence of a substantial grey area does not make a distinction worthless; if there are uses that are clearly "commercial" and thereby disallowed, or uses that are clearly "non-commercial" and thereby allowed, then the license can serve a purpose. IMO this is a valid perspective; in the non-grey areas, one would need to consult the more nuanced arguments at Licenses/NC to make a decision.
- I'd be interested to hear a well-informed and well-argued recommendation of the NC provision from somebody who has observed it leading to beneficial results. If you come across any, I'd appreciate a link. -Pete (talk) 21:43, 9 July 2020 (CEST)