Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
An examination of media use in biodiversity research publications reported that people both offering and reusing biodiversity media with the noncommercial license have a variety of conflicting understandings about what this should mean. [6] Erik Möller raised concerns about the use of Creative Commons' non-commercial license. Works distributed ...
The "non-commercial" option included in some Creative Commons licenses is controversial in definition, [62] as it is sometimes unclear what can be considered a non-commercial setting, and application, since its restrictions differ from the principles of open content promoted by other permissive licenses. [63]
This is an accepted version of this page This is the latest accepted revision, reviewed on 27 December 2024. Organization creating copyright licenses for the public release of creative works This article is about the organization. For their eponymous licenses, see Creative Commons license. For usage of product, see List of major Creative Commons licensed works. Creative Commons Creative ...
A non-commercial (also spelled noncommercial) activity is an activity that is not carried out in the interest of profit. [1] The opposite is commercial , something that primarily serves profit interests and is focused on business.
The term reciprocal license has also been used to describe copyleft, but has also been used for non-libre licenses (see, for example, the Microsoft Limited Reciprocal License). Free content and software licenses without the share-alike requirement are described as permissive licenses.
The statute does not clearly define fair use, but instead gives four non-exclusive factors to consider in a fair use analysis. Those factors are: the purpose and character of one's use; the nature of the copyrighted work; what amount and proportion of the whole work was taken;
The first factor is "the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes." To justify the use as fair, one must demonstrate how it either advances knowledge or the progress of the arts through the addition of something new. In the 1841 copyright case Folsom v.
Free-software licenses that use "weak" copyleft include the GNU Lesser General Public License and the Mozilla Public License. The GNU General Public License is an example of a license implementing strong copyleft. An even stronger copyleft license is the AGPL, which requires the publishing of the source code for software as a service use cases.