[Corpora-List] license question

[Emmanuel PROCHASSON]

Rayson, Paul a écrit :
> Hi,
>
> The "Attribution Non-commercial No Derivatives" and "Attribution
> Non-commercial Share Alike" are suitable for non-commercial use:
>
> http://creativecommons.org/about/licenses/meet-the-licenses
>
> Does anyone have any experience of using these CC types for academic
> licensees alongside commercial licences for non-academic licensees? I'm
> thinking, picking an example at random, of a creative commons licence
> for a semantic lexicon which academic users can use for free alongside
> something where commercial users come and talk to us separately for
> licensing.

hi,
I am new to this list, but I am familiar to those licence question (as a 
regular wikipedia contributor and a free software adept).

The Non-derivatives part of the license is dangerous to me, as it means 
that nobody would be able to contribute to your lexicon, and nobody 
could use it in another free (as in freedom) project, since a part of 
the project cant be derivate.

The Non-commercial license is dangerous too, since you can't really see 
where is the line between fair use and commercial use.

Those licenses are not "free" (as in freedom) license to me.

I think I understand your purpose, and I advise you to use a GFDL 
licence since it means :
* everybody can use it
* everybody can contribute to it
* everybody can distribute it
* nobody can take it for itself : one can add his name to the list of 
contributor of the lexicon, but not remove yours
* nobody can use it in a non-free project, as including a GFDL project 
in a larger project means the larger is GFDL. So a commercial use of 
your lexicon implies the result is all GFDL and everybody would be able 
to use it and distribute it, free or not (as in free beer). That also 
means for example that everyone using wikipedia contents in their 
documentation (or teaching) *must* make it GFDL and cite original source.

I hope this is clear, my english speaking is not that good.

-- 
Emmanuel Prochasson