On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 7:52 AM, Andrew Gray <andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk> wrote: > 2009/9/15 Anthony <wikim...@inbox.org>: >> On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 5:39 AM, Hay (Husky) <hus...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> with its 255 pages >>> this might be something that you would rather like to skim through >>> instead of fully read :) >> >> Anything to disrupt my view that the NC licenses suck because it's unclear >> what they mean?
Probably not. > Not a view I disagree with, personally! > > One interesting example the blog post brings up - a > nonprofit-with-ads, paying for hosting costs that way, is that > commercial? 60% of creators say it is non-commercial, whilst *70%* of > reusers think so - which really does begin to sound like a recipe for > unintentionally annoying a lot of people releasing material under the > license. It's not that bad. What you see is a scale where 1=noncommercial and 100=commercial, and creators rated the case you mention 59.2 on that scale, users 71.7 -- so creators see that case as less commercial than users, which is ideal if fewer disputes are a good outcome (and as far as I know there aren't many). Of course one of the ways disputes are avoided is that users just avoid NC licensed content, as Wikimedia projects do. Kudos. Mike _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
