Nicol Wistreich<p><span class="h-card" translate="no"><a href="https://mastodon.social/@egonw" class="u-url mention" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">@<span>egonw</span></a></span> <span class="h-card" translate="no"><a href="https://social.coop/@eloquence" class="u-url mention" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">@<span>eloquence</span></a></span> sounds maybe harder to govern than already dodged cross-border tax. CC also seems to have resisted adding clauses to help define commercial use. I only know of <a href="https://social.coop/tags/CCRel" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>CCRel</span></a> (<a href="https://wiki.creativecommons.org/images/d/d6/Ccrel-1.0.pdf" rel="nofollow noopener" translate="no" target="_blank"><span class="invisible">https://</span><span class="ellipsis">wiki.creativecommons.org/image</span><span class="invisible">s/d/d6/Ccrel-1.0.pdf</span></a>), which built on Aaron Swartz's <a href="https://social.coop/tags/RDFa" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>RDFa</span></a> syntax for CC licenses, to let people construct &amp; define more complex rights docs: "publishers can use ccREL descriptions in combination with<br>additional attributes taken from other publishers, or with entirely new attributes", but not heard of its use.</p>