open-discussion
open-discussion > RE: More effective than gratis/libre?
Oct 24, 2013 10:10 AM | Ian Malone
RE: More effective than gratis/libre?
The intel classification of non-commercial as anything for which
you receive a salary is specifically included in the terms of their
contract.
[1] http://software.intel.com/en-us/non-comm...
[2] http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles...
[3] http://software.intel.com/en-us/sites/de...
(It is also in the terms of use for the intel website, so perhaps you shouldn't view it at work. The terms at link [1] are also not the same as those in the actual EULA [3]. These salary definition seems so strict that I'm not sure you could ever realistically comply with them.)
This is different to the terms in the BY-NC-SA license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-n... 4c (4b in the by-nc license):
"You may not exercise any of the rights granted to You in Section 3 above in any manner that is primarily intended for or directed toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation."
(As has already been mentioned, N.B. the word 'primarily', which does not appear in the intel license either.)
Discussed in this video 40 minutes in (it is possible to skip to 40min, but you will need to allow buffering for a while):
[4] https://opensource.stanford.edu/2008/05/...
And the outcome of the creative commons survey summarised:
[5] http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/...
[6] http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Defining...
Figure 10 of [6] is useful. If this ever came to a court case, because of a breach of contract, contracts rest on what the parties would have understood the terms to mean. The CC licenses don't provide an exhaustive definition of what non-commercial means, but that work does set out what it's commonly understood to mean. For any given work the situation would be clearer if the creator set out separately what they would consider acceptable non-commercial use.
(disclaimer: IANAL)
[1] http://software.intel.com/en-us/non-comm...
[2] http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles...
[3] http://software.intel.com/en-us/sites/de...
(It is also in the terms of use for the intel website, so perhaps you shouldn't view it at work. The terms at link [1] are also not the same as those in the actual EULA [3]. These salary definition seems so strict that I'm not sure you could ever realistically comply with them.)
This is different to the terms in the BY-NC-SA license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-n... 4c (4b in the by-nc license):
"You may not exercise any of the rights granted to You in Section 3 above in any manner that is primarily intended for or directed toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation."
(As has already been mentioned, N.B. the word 'primarily', which does not appear in the intel license either.)
Discussed in this video 40 minutes in (it is possible to skip to 40min, but you will need to allow buffering for a while):
[4] https://opensource.stanford.edu/2008/05/...
And the outcome of the creative commons survey summarised:
[5] http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/...
[6] http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Defining...
Figure 10 of [6] is useful. If this ever came to a court case, because of a breach of contract, contracts rest on what the parties would have understood the terms to mean. The CC licenses don't provide an exhaustive definition of what non-commercial means, but that work does set out what it's commonly understood to mean. For any given work the situation would be clearer if the creator set out separately what they would consider acceptable non-commercial use.
(disclaimer: IANAL)
Threaded View
Title | Author | Date |
---|---|---|
Andrew Worth | Oct 22, 2013 | |
Andrew Worth | Nov 27, 2013 | |
Andrew Worth | Nov 9, 2013 | |
Ronald Pierson | Nov 10, 2013 | |
Andrew Worth | Oct 24, 2013 | |
Torsten Rohlfing | Oct 24, 2013 | |
Andrew Worth | Oct 24, 2013 | |
Torsten Rohlfing | Oct 25, 2013 | |
Cinly Ooi | Oct 22, 2013 | |
Bennett Landman | Oct 22, 2013 | |
Matthew Brett | Oct 22, 2013 | |
vsochat | Oct 22, 2013 | |
Torsten Rohlfing | Oct 22, 2013 | |
vsochat | Oct 22, 2013 | |
Torsten Rohlfing | Oct 22, 2013 | |
Bennett Landman | Oct 22, 2013 | |
Ged Ridgway | Oct 23, 2013 | |
Bennett Landman | Oct 23, 2013 | |
Luis Ibanez | Oct 23, 2013 | |
Ged Ridgway | Oct 23, 2013 | |
Luis Ibanez | Oct 24, 2013 | |
Ged Ridgway | Oct 24, 2013 | |
Luis Ibanez | Oct 27, 2013 | |
Manuel Jorge Cardoso | Oct 29, 2013 | |
Andrew Worth | Oct 29, 2013 | |
Ronald Pierson | Oct 24, 2013 | |
Torsten Rohlfing | Oct 24, 2013 | |
Ged Ridgway | Oct 24, 2013 | |
Ian Malone | Oct 24, 2013 | |
Ian Malone | Oct 24, 2013 | |
Torsten Rohlfing | Oct 22, 2013 | |
Arno Klein | Oct 22, 2013 | |
Ged Ridgway | Oct 22, 2013 | |