<?xml version="1.0"?><!-- generator="bbPress" -->

<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
>

<channel>
<title>CC Forum &#187; Topic: Non-commercial licenses and political parties</title>
<link>http://forum.creativecommons.org/</link>
<description>CC Forum &#187; Topic: Non-commercial licenses and political parties</description>
<language>en</language>
<pubDate>Mon, 22 Mar 2010 14:59:15 +0000</pubDate>

<item>
<title>johndoe on "Non-commercial licenses and political parties"</title>
<link>http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/6#post-11</link>
<pubDate>Tue, 27 May 2008 07:33:28 +0000</pubDate>
<dc:creator>johndoe</dc:creator>
<guid isPermaLink="false">11@http://forum.creativecommons.org/</guid>
<description>&#60;p&#62;Thanks Mike! I think you are right: &#34;the enlightened thing to do is to let anyone use your work&#34;. That's indeed what it's all about.
&#60;/p&#62;</description>
</item>
<item>
<title>mlinksva on "Non-commercial licenses and political parties"</title>
<link>http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/6#post-10</link>
<pubDate>Mon, 26 May 2008 19:25:40 +0000</pubDate>
<dc:creator>mlinksva</dc:creator>
<guid isPermaLink="false">10@http://forum.creativecommons.org/</guid>
<description>&#60;p&#62;Hi johndoe,&#60;/p&#62;
&#60;p&#62;Good question.  The best guidelines we have no regarding what constitutes commercial use are at &#60;a href=&#34;http://wiki.creativecommons.org/NC&#34; rel=&#34;nofollow&#34;&#62;http://wiki.creativecommons.org/NC&#60;/a&#62; but these are in draft form and don't seem to attempt to cover political parties, and probably other arguably non-commercial users as well.  So there is no definitive answer.&#60;/p&#62;
&#60;p&#62;However, I would say that CC licenses, like almost all &#34;open&#34; licenses, are intended to be offered to the public, not everyone excepting people the licensor doesn't like.&#60;/p&#62;
&#60;p&#62;I think the enlightened thing to do is to let anyone use your work and demand attribution with a link (as every CC license facilitates) to you. If your enemy wants to go ahead and link to you, which presumably subverts their cause, great!&#60;/p&#62;
&#60;p&#62;If you can't stomach unforseen uses of your work, don't release it under a public license.
&#60;/p&#62;</description>
</item>
<item>
<title>johndoe on "Non-commercial licenses and political parties"</title>
<link>http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/6#post-9</link>
<pubDate>Mon, 26 May 2008 10:43:15 +0000</pubDate>
<dc:creator>johndoe</dc:creator>
<guid isPermaLink="false">9@http://forum.creativecommons.org/</guid>
<description>&#60;p&#62;Hi CC people,&#60;/p&#62;
&#60;p&#62;We had a discussion today about licensing our photos on Flickr. A friend licensed his photos for &#34;non-commercial&#34; as he doesn't want to open up the license for political parties he doesn't support. I can see his point, it could be unethically to give your photos for a cause you don't support or worse, you try to fight against.&#60;/p&#62;
&#60;p&#62;So, my question here... is a political party a commercial organization? They get subsidies and don't make profit, they don't &#34;sell&#34; anything and are not subscribed in the &#34;commercial register&#34; (at least in Belgium that is).&#60;/p&#62;
&#60;p&#62;Does anyone know something about this?&#60;/p&#62;
&#60;p&#62;Thanks!
&#60;/p&#62;</description>
</item>

</channel>
</rss>
