Why was a Non-commercial License chosen for Users' Content on this forum?

Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License: Terms of Service - McNeel Forum

A lot of content and scripts posted by the users here is copy-pasted to aid in commercial environments. Surely, nobody polices this closely, but why making it illegal. It may one day backfire on those who haven’t taken time to check it.

In comparison User Content License for all Stack Exchange sites allows commercial distribution: What is the license for the content I post? - Help Center - Stack Overflow

I don’t think that the content can be now retroactively relicesed :slight_smile: , but it would be good to at least know if there was a particular reasoning behind this decision.

NonCommercial explained

Creative Commons NC licenses expressly define NonCommercial as “not primarily intended for or directed towards commercial advantage or monetary compensation.” [2] The inclusion of “primarily” in the definition recognizes that no activity is completely disconnected from commercial activity; it is only the primary purpose of the reuse that needs to be considered.

The definition of NonCommercial is intentionally flexible; the definition is specific enough to make its intended operation and reach clear, but versatile enough to cover a wide variety of use cases. Narrowly or exhaustively attempting to prescribe every permitted and prohibited activity is an impossible task and, in Creative Commons’ judgment, an ill-advised one. Thus, the definition sets out a principle for determining what uses do and do not qualify, but does not list specific use cases (aside from peer-to-peer file sharing).

In this case I interpret “primary” to mean any attempt to package/sell the scripts or other content directly is not allowed, not their use in creating commercial work, which I deem “secondary”.


Interesting, thank you. I hope that you are correct (otherwise I would suggest adding a note that it is not a legal advice, but I’m not a lawyer myself).

A follow-up question would be, what about the previous grasshopper3d.com forum? Its terms of service didn’t mention any license for user content at all, so I assume this “secondary commercial” usage doeasn’t apply to the years of content stored there?

Dunno, I’m not a lawyer either… It should be obvious that anyone who posts any kind of content on this public forum is tacitly releasing any kind of claim to that content - as one basically has zero control over where it will go next and how it will be used.

And conversely if anyone has any concern at all about retaining rights, commercial or otherwise, the solution is extremely simple: don’t post it.

I’m not a lawyer.

The license is about copyright. When an individual who we’ll call Sarah posts original content such as on the internet Sarah retains copyright to that content unless she has explicitly transferred or relinquished the copyright. By posting content on McNeel forum Sarah agrees to permit (license) the use of her copyright content as described in the CC-NC.

Fred decides he can make money by selling copies of scripts Sarah has posted on the Rhino forum. That would be a violation of Sarah’s copyright which is not covered by the CC-NC license and Sarah could sue Fred.

Similarly Sarah discovers that Horn Modeling Services uses her scripts in-house when creating Rhino models for customers. That would be a violation of Sarah’s copyright which is not covered by the CC-NC license and Sarah could sue Horn Modeling Services.

Whether it is feasible and financially reasonable for Sarah to sue in either case depends on the circumstances.

Pierre posts a question on Rhino forum about how to do some modeling on a project his architectural firm is working on. In response Sarah posts a script which Pierre and his firm use. My opinion is by posting the script in response to the post Sarah implies she is licensing the script for commercial use.

So, I could sue each and every person who has ever used any of the scripts I created and posted here for commercial purposes? COOL!!! I’m going to be rich!!! :moneybag: :moneybag: :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:

Oh, darn, that means I (and virtually everyone else) have given tacit permission to use the stuff… I’m not going to be rich… :sob: :money_with_wings: :money_with_wings:

1 Like

What if Pierre didn’t say that he works for a commercial firm, but Sarah helped him and he used it commercially? What if he said that, but Roger, who works in a different company than Pierre used it?

It seems to me that this could expose a lot of commercial users to “legal trolls”. Or is it all only theoretical?

What do you think about changing the licence to Sharealike (let’s call it Sarahlike :slight_smile: )?

Remember, I’m not a lawyer.

Probably mostly theoretical. To receive damages the copyright holder has to file suit, prove their work was copied, prove that they were damaged, and then actually collect any damages awarded. How would Sarah be aware and prove that Roger used her script and not his own similar script? What was the value of Sarah’s script? How was Sarah damaged? Does Sarah sell scripts?

My guess is most simple scripts would be considered as having minimal value.

hate to be a pain, but theoretically Tom, a disgruntled employee could leverage this against his bosses thanks to access to everyone’s scripts saved on his company’s internal network

It may be nitpicking, but for the record