“开放许可证”是我们创建开放内容的方式。这对于实现协作和知识共享非常重要。（开放许可证也称为“自由许可证”——自由即自由）。
开放许可证的倡导者通常不认为带有非商业条款的许可证是真正免费的，因为它不能免费用于任何目的。例如，请参阅Freedom Defined wiki。
Contents
使用带有类似共享W条款（没有非商业条款 - 例如CC-BY-SA ）的许可证意味着，如果商业实体使用内容，他们必须根据兼容许可证发布任何修改，并遵循归属要求。许多商业组织会干脆选择不使用这些内容；其他人将使用它，并通过分享他们的修改来回馈社区并支持开放内容。
Appropedia 允许商业用途
True open content material (that does not use the non-commercial restriction) is in principle compatible with projects such as Appropedia, OLPC content bundles, or Wikipedia.
Appropedia uses a license which allows commercial use. We don't mind if someone makes money out of this content, and under our license, we can't stop anyone from doing so.
In fact, if this information is used for the purpose of sustainable business, or a small entrepreneur in a developing country uses Appropedia content (with attribution), for example printing it out and selling books, booklets or pamphlets, that is a sign of Appropedia's success and the value of the content. It helps to spread the knowledge and positive impact further - which is our ultimate goal.
Appropedia and restricted (Non-Commercial) (No Derivatives) content
While we encourage like minded communities and websites to use an Open content license in most cases, without the non-commercial clause, we respect that the creators of content have the right to license the content how they wish.
In general we do not include content in Appropedia unless it can be freely edited, improved and reused. Feel free to post a review of any such material if you think it could be useful to other users of this site. If it is available as a free download on the web then include a link. If it has to be paid for then include a link to the publisher. We may never get all relevant information included on this site but in the meantime we can make this site the first port of call for anyone looking for links to such information.
Problems with non-commercial licenses
There are major problems with non-commercial (NC) licenses:
- If a Micro-entrepreneur wants to print information out and sell it as books or booklets, or sell a solar water heater incorporating ideas from here, this is spreading the information. A trainer may be prevented from using the material in a course. In the Appropedia Foundation's case, and for most in the Appropedia community and other communities such as Wikipedia which allow commercial use, we want to spread the information as far as possible - we want trainers to run better courses, and people to be able to buy printed versions of our content if they wish. Any restriction will mean, in most cases, that the information simply won't be used. The opportunity to pass on a lifesaving piece of Public health knowledge, or a way to reduce a company's ecological impact, may be missed.
- Much content online which is under a relatively open license has a non-commercial clause, specifically the CC-by-nc (or sometimes CC-by-nc-sa) license. This is not "free content". Many international bodies such as the FAO have their own statments to the same effect - you can use it for non-commercial use only. Any content with this kind of clause cannot be used in a publication or website operating on the more open license types that don't have the clause. For example, FAO content cannot be used on Appropedia (apart from the standard Fair useW provisions, small quotes etc).
Secondary concerns include:
- The exact definition of non-commercial is not intuitive. What about a personal blog with ads? What about a business that distributes an information leaflet at cost, as a service to the public? What about use by a private educational institution? They are not even defined by Creative Commons in their non-commercial licenses, though some study has now been done on public understanding of the clause: see CC: Defining Noncommercial.
Concerns with licenses allowing commercial use
A Virgin mobile advertising campaign used people's personal photos, licensed under a CC license, from Flickr, and caused a storm of controversy. This was a very rare case (and the controversy it caused will probably make it more rare) but it highlights one potential problem with allowing commercial use: People may use the content (including images) in ways you don't want. This may not matter if it's a photo of a sand filter, but it probably does matter if it's a photograph of a family member, friend, or a publicity-shy person, particularly "cute," amusing or embarrassing shots.
Thus a fully open license is probably not the best idea for sensitive material (personal photos, photographs of other people, and especially photographs of children). Consider carefully before choosing a license in such cases.
External links
- FreedomDefined: The Case for Free Use: Reasons Not to Use a Creative Commons -NC License. A much more extended argument against using NC licenses.
- CC:NonCommercial - includes a list of blog posts by Rob Myers and others. These are more focused on artists, but still have relevance to broader problems with NC licenses.
- Commons:Project:Licensing/Justifications - Arguments for open licenses without the NC clause, focused particularly on images and media files.
- 通过免费照片赚钱- 维基百科路标上介绍的摄影师。
- 非商业性知识共享许可有意义吗？（CNet 博客文章，2007 年 11 月 27 日）。“特别是在当今个人生活和职业生活相互交织的世界中，定义“非商业用途”的开始和结束可能会变得异常棘手。”