File talk:Ordering of Creative Commons licenses from most to least permissive.png

Deturmining which is more free NC or ND

Both do not comply with the Open Source or Free Software definitions (ignoring software aspect).

NC: Non-commercial is a widly miss-understood concept. All free licences are commercial. It is not simply about charging for the product. Creative Commans in there article explaining NC, have stated that they will not clarify. The Free Software Foundation have stated that non-comercial clauses are discriminatory, and produce a legal ambeguety. NC restricts where and who uses the work.

ND: You can still include un-altered in you own work, this restricts what you do, but not who does it or where they do it.

Use cases

Are there any use cases for the use of the non-free NC and ND varientes?

ND: The Free Software Foundation states that non-derivative licences that are free in every other way (such as the Creative Commons No Derivatives licences). Are OK and recommended for works of opinion, or for writing a licence or contract.

NC: Creative Commons states that it is better than no licence. «Please add better use-case for NC, if one exists»

Change illustration of openness scale

Ordering licenses: wrong to say ND>NC.

In an Open Access context, the usual view is that "NC is more open than ND", NC>ND, so, not what was illustrated (ND>NC).

The best reference about this conclusion is at http://www.oaspectrum.org/faq , see "REUSE RIGHTS" column at

• HowOpenIsIt Guide that originated OpenSpectrum;
• scores that curators achieve for reuse rights, 14>7.

--Krauss (talk) 21:12, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

@Krauss: In my opinion you are right. @all: I guess it would the best if someone with time fix this error. It may also be good to inform creativecommons.org about this issue. -- Stephan Kulla (talk) 14:28, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

(reply of this talk) Thanks @Stephan Kulla and @Bluerasberry, yes is not an "error" but a matter of (community) opinion, as any design and any subjective ranking... We are the community, but, yes, perhaps the best to decide is the CC community... (if it will be a matter of Wikipedians vote, we can send a message to CC as Kulla suggested)... There are non-subjective logic also. The yellow portion of the openness rank was exposed by Open Definition, that says rank(NC or ND) < rank(BY or SA). The logic is objective: this is a good clue... Lets follow the track, ranking a bit more by logic. The assertion rank(NC)≠rank(ND) is well founded in the "logic of The 4 Freedoms" (better stated here). There are a precedence logic: ND blocks integrally one of the four freedoms, NC not. --Krauss (talk) 09:15, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion for ordering by an openness-degree criteria

Example of using CC0 as maximum score and the clauses (BY, SA, etc.) as score-penalties, computing a kind of openness degree to use also for ordering. See this spreadsheet.
Note: score 0 (zero) is the license family of the "no charge copyrighted works", with all the Berne restriction clauses.

Another way to see the rank of license-families...Or a rationale to the choice of "openness degree" values. It is a suggestion to simplify discussion: lets "vote" (check our average point of view).

The CC0 license family have the maximum openness degree, suppose the value 100. Any other clause (BY, SA, etc.) represents a "lost of openness" (a penalty value), and this lost have a value something subjective... But the set of penalty-values need to preserve the consensual ordering,
    CC0 > CC-BY > CC-SA > (CC-BY-NC, CC-BY-ND, ...) > CC-BY-NC-ND.
So, just vote on a set of consistent values:

• votes for penalty scores   BY=-10; SA=-20; (NC or ND)=-50; (NC and ND)=-20; ND=-5.
  • --Krauss (talk) 13:48, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
  • ... you ...

• votes for penalty scores   BY=...; SA=... ;... your suggestion ...
  • ... you ...

Summary of the consensual ordering rules

Summary of the usual (supposed consensual) ordering and relative "openness scores" of the restriction clauses.

Let suppose an consensual "openness score" function, os(licenseX), that can by applied also to the license clauses in isolation.

1. os(CC0)=100   an arbitrary "highest score" for CC0.
2. os(copyright0)=0   an arbitrary "lowest score" for a license of a (free of charge) copyrighted work.
3. os(BY)<0, os(SA)<0, ...   the attribution, share-alike, etc. clauses represents "score costs".
4. os(CC0) > os(CC-BY) > os(CC-BY-SA) > os(CC-BY-NC-SA) > os(CC-BY-NC-ND)   the usual view and perceptions about these licenses. No ambiguity, strong consensus (?) assertion.
5. |os(BY)| < |os(SA)|   the cost of SA is bigger than BY, see trade offs at this usual explanaition.
6. |os(SA)| < |os(NC or ND)|   the cost of NC or ND is bigger than SA, as exposed by Open Definition.
7. |os(NC)| < |os(ND)|   the cost of NC is greater than ND, because ND blocks integrally one of the four freedoms. See also perceptions (subjective scores) at OAspectrum, scores that curators achieve for reuse rights, 7>14.

--Krauss (talk) 18:47, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

PS: this theoretic subsection was added to support similar WIFO.ORG discussion.

Ordering by openness, or most permission?

I realize that OA and OER muddy things, but for the en:Open Source Definition, Open (Knowledge) Definition, and en:Open Source Hardware Definition, "open" in binary. Non-open terms such as NC and ND don't help build a commons; whether one is more or less restrictive than the other is immaterial. Open terms requiring preservation of provenance and openness (typically known as attribution/notice requirements and copyleft/share-alike respectively, though reality is slightly broader) are a matter of strategy; there's no consensus on whether their presence or absence results in more openness. My suggestion is to rename this something like "Ordering of Creative Commons licenses from most to least permissive.png" and debate the relative demerits of NC and ND in those terms as well. Mike Linksvayer (talk) 17:34, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

 Agree Surprised/Happy to already find the exact words I tought. This file should be moved to File:Ordering of Creative Commons licenses from most to least permissive.png. Adding the {{Move}}. --Valerio Bozzolan (talk) 17:20, 8 December 2016 (UTC)