[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Peggy Hoon on licenses
- To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
- Subject: RE: Peggy Hoon on licenses
- From: Sandy Thatcher <sandy.thatcher@alumni.princeton.edu>
- Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2011 17:54:57 EST
- Reply-to: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
- Sender: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
While I agree about the general utility of CC licenses, I wish someone could explain to me what the difference between "commercial" and "noncommercial" use is. The CC itself conducted a survey a couple of years ago and found little consensus beyond a very small core of shared understanding of what the distinction connotes. This is not just a philosophical concern, since very real practical consequences depend on knowing the difference as it applies to various publishing ventures. Sandy Thatcher >The best licensing in existence for scholarly communication, >IMHO, is CC licensing, as this simplifies understanding of how >materials can be used. CC licenses are used by >subscriptions-based as well as open access publishers. Of course, >this does not help when we are licensing resources from vendors / >publishers who do not use CC licenses. The reason that I bring >this up is because all of us who work with vendors at any level >can play a useful role in helping them to understand the current >and evolving needs of scholarship, so that they can develop >practices which will help them to survive and thrive into the >future. > >best, > >Heather G. Morrison >Project Coordinator >BC Electronic Library Network
- Prev by Date: ASPET joins the CLOCKSS Archive
- Next by Date: March 2011 issue of the SPARC Open Access Newsletter
- Previous by thread: RE: Peggy Hoon on licenses
- Next by thread: Re: Peggy Hoon on licenses
- Index(es):