<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The Right Creative Commons License for Ministry Blogs</title>
	<atom:link href="http://churchm.ag/the-right-creative-commons-license-for-ministry-blogs/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://churchm.ag/the-right-creative-commons-license-for-ministry-blogs/</link>
	<description>Exploring the Intersection of Church and Technology</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 04:25:55 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
<xhtml:meta xmlns:xhtml="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" name="robots" content="noindex" />
	<item>
		<title>By: Blaise Alleyne</title>
		<link>http://churchm.ag/the-right-creative-commons-license-for-ministry-blogs/#comment-47452</link>
		<dc:creator>Blaise Alleyne</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 27 Feb 2009 02:52:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://churchcrunch.com/?p=3126#comment-47452</guid>
		<description>I have to strongly disagree. There are a whole &lt;a href=&quot;http://freedomdefined.org/NC&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;host of problems with Creative Commons Noncommercial licenses&lt;/a&gt;.


&lt;em&gt;&quot;It let’s people share your content that you create. That’s a good thing.&quot;&lt;/em&gt;

Not on a blog with ads. That&#039;s commercial use.


&lt;em&gt;It means that if someone else uses your content they have to abide by the rules set out by the license that you use. No abuse or “grey” lines here!&lt;/em&gt;

The line between commercial use and noncommercial use is the &lt;em&gt;biggest&lt;/em&gt; grey line in all of the Creative Commons licenses. They&#039;re conducting a huge survey on it now because of all the confusion. There is ambiguity between commercial use and commercial users, between profit and commercial use, etc.


&lt;em&gt;It forces a “ask permission” type mentality for everything. It’s simply good practice to “ask for permission” to use stuff. It gives the author the ability to “waive” any of their above aforementioned rights on a case-by-case basis.&lt;/em&gt;

&quot;Asking permission&quot; is a good thing? The whole point of using free licensing is to avoid the legal costs and hassle of a permission culture. With CC licenses, you signal what content can and cannot be used for and ultimately limit the need for anyone to ask permission as much as possible. If &quot;asking permission&quot; is the norm with a CC license, that would be a bad sign.

&lt;em&gt;It doesn’t “impair nor restrict the author’s moral rights.” A little ambiguous here, but good anyways.&lt;/em&gt;

&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights_(copyright_law)&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&quot;Moral Rights&quot; refers to a specific part of copyright law.&lt;/a&gt; Moral rights don&#039;t exist in the United States, but copyright includes moral rights in Canada and some countries in Europe.


The ShareAlike provision combats most real exploitation, while the noncommercial restriction has all sorts of unintended consequences and prevents all kinds of uses you&#039;d actually want to allow. A NC restriction isn&#039;t &quot;open source&quot; at all. Software licenses with non-commercial restrictions would fail to meet the OSI&#039;s definition of open source.

Check out the reasons not to use NC licenses that I linked to up above.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I have to strongly disagree. There are a whole <a href="http://freedomdefined.org/NC" rel="nofollow">host of problems with Creative Commons Noncommercial licenses</a>.</p>
<p><em>&#8220;It let’s people share your content that you create. That’s a good thing.&#8221;</em></p>
<p>Not on a blog with ads. That&#8217;s commercial use.</p>
<p><em>It means that if someone else uses your content they have to abide by the rules set out by the license that you use. No abuse or “grey” lines here!</em></p>
<p>The line between commercial use and noncommercial use is the <em>biggest</em> grey line in all of the Creative Commons licenses. They&#8217;re conducting a huge survey on it now because of all the confusion. There is ambiguity between commercial use and commercial users, between profit and commercial use, etc.</p>
<p><em>It forces a “ask permission” type mentality for everything. It’s simply good practice to “ask for permission” to use stuff. It gives the author the ability to “waive” any of their above aforementioned rights on a case-by-case basis.</em></p>
<p>&#8220;Asking permission&#8221; is a good thing? The whole point of using free licensing is to avoid the legal costs and hassle of a permission culture. With CC licenses, you signal what content can and cannot be used for and ultimately limit the need for anyone to ask permission as much as possible. If &#8220;asking permission&#8221; is the norm with a CC license, that would be a bad sign.</p>
<p><em>It doesn’t “impair nor restrict the author’s moral rights.” A little ambiguous here, but good anyways.</em></p>
<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights_(copyright_law)" rel="nofollow">&#8220;Moral Rights&#8221; refers to a specific part of copyright law.</a> Moral rights don&#8217;t exist in the United States, but copyright includes moral rights in Canada and some countries in Europe.</p>
<p>The ShareAlike provision combats most real exploitation, while the noncommercial restriction has all sorts of unintended consequences and prevents all kinds of uses you&#8217;d actually want to allow. A NC restriction isn&#8217;t &#8220;open source&#8221; at all. Software licenses with non-commercial restrictions would fail to meet the OSI&#8217;s definition of open source.</p>
<p>Check out the reasons not to use NC licenses that I linked to up above.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Boy in the Bands &#187; Blog Archive &#187; More on which Creative Commons license</title>
		<link>http://churchm.ag/the-right-creative-commons-license-for-ministry-blogs/#comment-47451</link>
		<dc:creator>Boy in the Bands &#187; Blog Archive &#187; More on which Creative Commons license</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Feb 2009 23:49:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://churchcrunch.com/?p=3126#comment-47451</guid>
		<description>[...] writer was thinking about what Creative Commons license to use with the site&#8217;s content. The choice? Same as this blog and The Liberal Christian, the new [...] </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] writer was thinking about what Creative Commons license to use with the site&#8217;s content. The choice? Same as this blog and The Liberal Christian, the new [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: human3rror</title>
		<link>http://churchm.ag/the-right-creative-commons-license-for-ministry-blogs/#comment-47450</link>
		<dc:creator>human3rror</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 21 Feb 2009 17:34:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://churchcrunch.com/?p=3126#comment-47450</guid>
		<description>right on chris. you can&#039;t control it, but feel free to &quot;call&quot; someone out.. that has worked for me. </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>right on chris. you can&#039;t control it, but feel free to &quot;call&quot; someone out.. that has worked for me.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: human3rror</title>
		<link>http://churchm.ag/the-right-creative-commons-license-for-ministry-blogs/#comment-47449</link>
		<dc:creator>human3rror</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 21 Feb 2009 17:34:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://churchcrunch.com/?p=3126#comment-47449</guid>
		<description>definitely .without question, or you&#039;re just a blog &quot;scraper&quot;. </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>definitely .without question, or you&#039;re just a blog &quot;scraper&quot;.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: chrisdat</title>
		<link>http://churchm.ag/the-right-creative-commons-license-for-ministry-blogs/#comment-47448</link>
		<dc:creator>chrisdat</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 21 Feb 2009 17:13:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://churchcrunch.com/?p=3126#comment-47448</guid>
		<description>Sam, I agree and try to do that. Sometimes it doesn&#039;t always work. For example they post a key sentence or two that you are responding to, or adding on to and context is not key. 
 
The good think is if it&#039;s a WP blog and your on WP an automatic link (trackback - not sure of the right word) is generated. Otherwise - I try and find a trackback link. That way the referenced blog has a chance to comment and drive traffic back to there blog. 
 
Just my amatuer 2 cents. Let&#039;s see what  &quot;human3rorr&quot; has to says. </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Sam, I agree and try to do that. Sometimes it doesn&#039;t always work. For example they post a key sentence or two that you are responding to, or adding on to and context is not key. </p>
<p>The good think is if it&#039;s a WP blog and your on WP an automatic link (trackback &#8211; not sure of the right word) is generated. Otherwise &#8211; I try and find a trackback link. That way the referenced blog has a chance to comment and drive traffic back to there blog. </p>
<p>Just my amatuer 2 cents. Let&#039;s see what  &quot;human3rorr&quot; has to says.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sam</title>
		<link>http://churchm.ag/the-right-creative-commons-license-for-ministry-blogs/#comment-47447</link>
		<dc:creator>Sam</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 21 Feb 2009 17:02:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://churchcrunch.com/?p=3126#comment-47447</guid>
		<description>When a person has a blog post that they have spent time on, I would say it would always be proper to only grab a portion of the post rather then the whole things. And then add a link so a reader could follow to the other blog for the rest. Especially if the person has added a copyright comment to their blog. Thoughts?  </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>When a person has a blog post that they have spent time on, I would say it would always be proper to only grab a portion of the post rather then the whole things. And then add a link so a reader could follow to the other blog for the rest. Especially if the person has added a copyright comment to their blog. Thoughts?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: human3rror</title>
		<link>http://churchm.ag/the-right-creative-commons-license-for-ministry-blogs/#comment-47445</link>
		<dc:creator>human3rror</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 21 Feb 2009 01:47:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://churchcrunch.com/?p=3126#comment-47445</guid>
		<description>This is great! thanks for that! ;) </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This is great! thanks for that! <img src='http://cdn.churchm.ag/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif' alt=';)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: human3rror</title>
		<link>http://churchm.ag/the-right-creative-commons-license-for-ministry-blogs/#comment-47446</link>
		<dc:creator>human3rror</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 21 Feb 2009 01:47:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://churchcrunch.com/?p=3126#comment-47446</guid>
		<description>Great post idea. I&#039;ll do it! </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Great post idea. I&#39;ll do it!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: human3rror</title>
		<link>http://churchm.ag/the-right-creative-commons-license-for-ministry-blogs/#comment-47444</link>
		<dc:creator>human3rror</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 Feb 2009 15:53:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://churchcrunch.com/?p=3126#comment-47444</guid>
		<description>puaha. </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>puaha.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Aaron</title>
		<link>http://churchm.ag/the-right-creative-commons-license-for-ministry-blogs/#comment-47443</link>
		<dc:creator>Aaron</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 Feb 2009 15:47:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://churchcrunch.com/?p=3126#comment-47443</guid>
		<description>I heard you the first time :P </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I heard you the first time <img src='http://cdn.churchm.ag/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_razz.gif' alt=':P' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Minified using memcached (Feed is rejected)
Page Caching using memcached
Database Caching 1/5 queries in 0.003 seconds using memcached
Object Caching 475/479 objects using memcached
Content Delivery Network via cdn.churchm.ag

Served from: churchm.ag @ 2012-02-10 02:20:15 -->
