Comments on: NC Isn’t the Problem, SA Is… Part Deux http://opencontent.org/blog/archives/697 pragmatism over zeal Wed, 17 Mar 2010 06:59:35 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Stephen Downes http://opencontent.org/blog/archives/697/comment-page-1#comment-42750 Stephen Downes Mon, 22 Dec 2008 21:51:12 +0000 http://opencontent.org/blog/?p=697#comment-42750 My response is here: http://halfanhour.blogspot.com/2008/12/open-content-enclosure-and-conversion.html My response is here:
http://halfanhour.blogspot.com/2008/12/open-content-enclosure-and-conversion.html

]]> By: Steve Song http://opencontent.org/blog/archives/697/comment-page-1#comment-42748 Steve Song Sun, 21 Dec 2008 11:29:26 +0000 http://opencontent.org/blog/?p=697#comment-42748 To (attempt to) answer your second question about how BY-SA might allow the cordoning off of IP, I have heard Lessig argue that the Non-Commercial clause is needed because the Share Alike clause is only activated by someone making a modification. Share Alike states: "If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same, similar or a compatible license." Thus, if you do not alter the work but simply compile it with others into a book, for example, you are not bound to share it under the same terms. This is a legacy, I think, of the software origin of the CC license. Given that altering the formatting of a document is a transformation, I think the doomsday scenario of someone distributing material without activating the Share Alike clause is fairly slim. My impression is that the Non-Commercial clause was dreamt up to avoid a situation where you might have a commercial compilation of BY-SA mp3s, which seems a little more plausible. For me, this highlights the fact that Share Alike is broken and should come into play whether you modify the work or not. To (attempt to) answer your second question about how BY-SA might allow the cordoning off of IP, I have heard Lessig argue that the Non-Commercial clause is needed because the Share Alike clause is only activated by someone making a modification. Share Alike states:
“If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same, similar or a compatible license.”
Thus, if you do not alter the work but simply compile it with others into a book, for example, you are not bound to share it under the same terms. This is a legacy, I think, of the software origin of the CC license. Given that altering the formatting of a document is a transformation, I think the doomsday scenario of someone distributing material without activating the Share Alike clause is fairly slim. My impression is that the Non-Commercial clause was dreamt up to avoid a situation where you might have a commercial compilation of BY-SA mp3s, which seems a little more plausible.

For me, this highlights the fact that Share Alike is broken and should come into play whether you modify the work or not.

]]>