@xuv I wonder why it is "NonCommercial". Choosing "NonCommercial" makes sense only if you sell this furniture, to prevent others from making the same furniture as you. Just ShareAlike is enough to ensure any improvements are available to the public.

NonCommercial is a restriction that makes the content non-free, it is unnecessary restriction. Please don't choose NonCommercial CC licenses for anything you do.

@wire I asked them. They don't want other restaurants to use the same furniture.

@xuv So it is non-free indeed. It means that you can't legally use it even to build this furniture for, let's say, a cooperative bookstore in a different country.

@wire Yes. We're fully committed to libre furniture.

@wire @xuv No, that's not what that means. CC-BY-NC-SA means you can copy and share, with attribution, as long as you're not selling it for profit, and you distribute the files and objects under the same terms. It's very clear.

@xuv this is totaly wrong : another restaurant could cut these and use it, just not _sell_ them ... so they can go to local fablab with the file and make it for themself ... nothing can prevent you to use the object , the licence is only preventing you to sell the design ...
that NC clause is really misleading
@wire

@wire indeed, and specially since you have "non profit organisations" that do actual commercial transactions to fullfill their goals ...
imho this close should be avoided as much as possible, choosing either between strict copyright or some libre copyleft option...

the idea that another restaurant could copy/use the same design should be worked on, and play the "citation" rule at best giving this first resto the fame for sharing ... here it's borked :/
IAAC is playing bizarre here

@xuv

@Olm_e @wire I completely disagree with your interpretation of the "non-commercial" clause of the Creative Commercial license. By re-using this particular furniture design in another restaurant (or any commercial establishment), you would gain a commercial advantage and thus breach the license. So, in that sense, I agree with the restaurant owner, it's probably a good protection for that purpose.

@Olm_e @wire *Creative Commons. Not Creative Commercial. But you got it. Funny slip btw.

@xuv ;)
that interpretation could hold at some point, but then there is quasi no use of the design that can be legitimate so no interest to brag about it's openness as there is always some commercial process involved
(same critics goes to opendesk.cc which pretend to be open but is not for lot of designs)
the NC close has no legal base as "commercial" is not defined legaly anywhere, it's just a base for difficult unusefull legal battles, and deceiving (my pov)(even if I wish it would!)

@wire

@Olm_e @wire Dude, listen to yourself preventing people from using the word "open" because it does not fit your standards.

@xuv and basicaly, in comparaison, this design is as open as any IKEA ones, with a different but as much informational content (some measurement on the IAAC models while details and instructions on IKEA ones ... )
both you can't reproduce for business but you could for personal use ...

this NC close, again, is posing a lot of problem and could be resolved somehere down the line with a recognition of the economy of the commons

but this also needs some shift of mind

@wire

@Olm_e @wire You've probably just hit the Godwin's point of furniture design discussions by bringing Ikea into this thread. 👏

@xuv thanks ... I actually intended to launch
Hackea.be some times ago while I had my workshop (with @frankiezafe ;) ) but it didn't went that way ... maybe later :p

from my pov, that brand you should not name is a very close reality and actualy extremely reactive company that threaten the fabric of every artisan here... I know that (there is one some tens km nearby you know?)

so it's something to compare on the ethics actualy, not to forbid from thoughts, specialy on fablab/CC

@wire

@Olm_e @xuv Y'all are acting no better than the BSD people who claim that the GPL is actually non-free because you're not allowed to have a monopoly on your code.

It's not @wire 's "interpretation" of NC. Click the link and see what it says.

Plywood chairs don't give anyone commercial advantage, and if anyone made that claim, they would clearly be acting in bad faith in regards to the intention of the entire CC movement.

Also: Don't forget that the real shit - not even included in this situation - is the No Derivatives (ND) clause.

@teslas_moustache @Olm_e @xuv GPL does not prohibit commercial use, so I don't see how this is related.

According to FSF, NC licenses are non-free (gnu.org/licenses/license-list.). FSF actually uses ND for their website, though (gnu.org/licenses/license-list.) , while I don't think that copyright is a way to protect you from someone misinterpreting your opinion.

@wire @Olm_e @xuv I was worried that wouldn't make sense.

I think that the anti-NC people and the BSD-over-GPL people are being unreasonable in similar, but opposite ways.

@teslas_moustache
it's like comparing N and S with N and NW/NE...
I maybe was not clear : in most case in our mechanical reproduction era, a copy is also a "commercial transaction" at some point so CC+NC is ineffective /= (c) , specialy for hardware

this design is made/licenced by the fablabbcn.org/ so Y NC? (public code etc.. )
and I'm wondering if even the restaurant has the paper/licence to use it ;p
btw they are doing better by putting their receipes in CC too :D
@wire @xuv

@Olm_e @wire @xuv OK. Maybe it's just a bad comparison.

But I mean, I feel like it's pretty clear that *the design* (cad files, whatever) is what's CC-BY-NC-SA. Materials cost money. Labor costs money. Everyone knows this. It doesn't cost money to sit in a chair (hopefully). Hell, I can't do a damn thing outside capitalism without capitalism engulfing it completely.

@Olm_e @wire @xuv claiming that using these tables and chairs in a restaurant violates the NC clause is, to me, totally indefensible.

@teslas_moustache imho that's more about the workshop that would be asked to cut them for some tingeling the problem would arise : the cad file here are ~gcode files so ~= to mp3 you would play in a public commercial or not place ... if you pay/gain by playing them it's forbiden
so this is only "free" for people that own a CNC compatible and use it for their personal use

to my knowledge there is no (too few) court case with this so most would just abstain for too high juridic risk

@wire @xuv

@wire @xuv + here the design is in pretty closed format (dxf - readeable by freecad but not free; 3dp aka sketchup, and sdp alias shopbot tools format, mainly used on shopbot CNCs ... ) for a simple design that is not defined in term of assembly
(I can only read the dxf, wich is the simple basic shape of the table without any attachment method/even material depth ... )
si this sounds just PR at some point and any fablab would redo the work in less time than trying to use their design from this

@wire @xuv
to be clear also : I'm not saying it's on purpose and intended, nor "condemning" the designers/IAAC/restaurant, just that it's still far from coherency and even IAAC, as progressive as an institution can be, still has quirks when it goes to be both coherent in value and with the constraints of the real world...

I need some table home, maybe I'll reinvent this and put it in CC this summer ... we'll see ;)

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Merveilles

Revel in the marvels of the universe.