Conversation
Notices
-
TERRIBLE writeup on the Students for Free Culture blog, "Stop the Inclusion of Proprietary Licensess in !CC 4.0" http://ur1.ca/a1fyu
about 9 months ago from web- Hilton Garcia Fernandes, Kuro Sawai and nse banknifty 2012 like this.
-
Why terrible?
-
@laurelrusswurm How so?
-
@laurelrusswurm s/TERRIBLE/TERRIFIC #regularexpressions
Mike Linksvayer and Christopher Allan Webber like this. -
By removing ND and NC you remove creator choice. It might work if 90% of creative works were released under !CC but we're nowhere near that
-
@laurelrusswurm removing the sampling licenses helped. Besides, what about the suggestions to rename NC and ND to something not CC?
drew Roberts likes this. -
@laurelrusswurm it's not removing choice, it's removing support for non-free licenses. Creators are free to use some other non-free license.
Terry Hancock likes this. -
I thought it was a good writeup. I would be happy to see ND go away, but I would like to see NC continue.
-
@zoowar I trust ND and NC will eventually go away all on their own, because creators will eventually realize they loose fans
-
@laurelrusswurm we (whoever we is) need to take an empirical stance on this: do NC or ND promote the commons? If no, then jettison.
-
@greg Really? So why was that stance not taken at the beginning?
-
@laurelrusswurm there was very little empirical evidence at the time. Why a negative reaction to CC reacting to evidence?
-
@laurelrusswurm I keep asking myself that... ;-)
-
@laurelrusswurm yeah, I'm pretty sure that most cc stuff is actually nc, nd, or both. I'd rather have annoyingly non-fr…
-
@laurelrusswurm define commons in that context. Also, NC/ND don't protect against the things people are afraid of (mostly) so why bother?
-
@tekk and that is changing (becoming more Free than non-free) see, eg http://ur1.ca/a1gfo and others
-
@laurelrusswurm that doesn't really respond to the issue at hand.
-
@greg it doesn't matter that it dosn't protect against, the perception that matters. These are still radical ideas, and they need time.
-
@laurelrusswurn they are not radical ideas. CC BY-NC-ND basically encodes social norms, see eg http://goo.gl/z0K6Q and others.
-
@robmyers the stance wasn't taken at the beginning for a very good reason: no creators would have ever embraced it.
-
@laurelrusswurm Not a single band? Points to the core problem: lawyers! Their concepts are useful for earning them money. Is !CC just that?
-
@laurelrusswurm that is pure bold face conjecture without any proof.
-
@greg Of course NC and ND are radical ideas; if they weren't everyone would be using them.
-
@laurelrusswurm People have embraced those parts of it, though. And more less free is not necessarily better than less more free. #imo
-
@laurelrusswurm again untrue and conjecture without proof. Many don't know of CC thus don't use CC. Doesn't say anything re radicallnes
-
@greg I'm a self publishing novelist. Even though I understand this stuff, I was only brave enough to choose cc-by-nc-sa for my debut novel
-
@greg But the world didn't end, and my next novel will by cc by-sa.
-
@laurelrusswurm Perception is what matters, and !CC currently reinforces the perceptions that validate permission culture.
-
@laurelrusswurm What if !CC started actually educating instead of relying on those misguided perceptions?
Kẏra likes this. -
@laurelrusswurm !CC is a fairly wide spectrum. There is a tendency to talk about CC licensing as if homogenous.
-
@laurelrusswurm NC/ND don't ease people into free licenses any more than voting democrat eases people out of a two-party political system.
-
@laurelrusswurm Your argument makes assumptions without evidence. Artists being scared now does not mean we should feed off of that.
Kẏra likes this. -
@greg Your use of "untrue" is extraordinarily offensive. I am speaking from personal experience and we are both discussing unproven ideas
-
@laurelrusswurm the world may have ended & you just haven't spotted it yet, did you check it's md5sum? "md5sum world"
-
I 've been observing that ALL the !CC lincences aren't well protected against abuse. Even wikipedia. Always forced 2 pay lawyers to stop it.
-
@robmyers allowing ideas to be disseminated and germinate is always preferable to bloody revolution.
-
@laurelrusswurm ok, s/untrue/unlikely to be proven given all evidence out there that contradicts it already/
-
@laurelrusswurm sorry, there is just evidence to the contrary of what you say. I linked to some already.
-
@kuro He eventually named what I think was a very old Canadian band (couldn't find anything abt them online)
-
@laurelrusswurm You're making the "gateway drug" argument and !CC itself has no statistics to support that.
Kẏra likes this. -
@laurelrusswurm There's no evidence of gradual change, though (I do keep nagging CC for it).
-
@greg I took a quick look at your links and saw theories and statistics. Not quite the same thing.
-
@dpic You know I am a creator, not a lawyer or a scientist, and I know other creators. People make assumptions based on "common knowledge"
-
@dpic I understand that you all have come to understand that this is good, and now you want everyone else to too. But you can't force it.
-
@dpic Fear is an incredibly powerful thing. Especially when it is fear of not being able to feed your family.
-
@mjjzf Yes, and the suggestion is to remove NC and ND from that spectrum, which I believe would catastrphically harm !cc #StillTooNew
-
@laurelrusswurm Withdrawing support for something is not force, it's a statement. Anyone can fork a license.
Kẏra likes this. -
@dpic educating is the way to go... i thought that was what !cc *did* ... the new license selector thingy w/ free/non free stuff is great
Terry Hancock likes this. -
@laurelrusswurm Agreed on that note! Education can be more focused & consistent if their licenses didn't conflict with that message
Kẏra likes this. -
@laurelrusswurm exactly. NC and ND aren't appealing or needed by the already-famous. they do muddle things for everyone else.
-
@laurelrusswurm there exists evidence of Free licenses gaining in popularity.
-
@laurelrusswurm There exists ample evidence that people already engage in noncommercial filesharing, especially of the netgen.
-
@laurelrusswurm actually I think that this may be a good application of my preferred form of change: experimentation. p…
-
@laurelrusswurm http://ur1.ca/a1gfo <- previously linked metrics. it does seem to show a long term uptake in free licen…
Arne Babenhauserheide likes this. -
@laurelrusswurm and you can only fork it if you have at leats a basic knowledge of writing legal things, if you want it to work.
-
@mlinksva One of my favorite musicians is @Allison_Crowe who uses variety of CC licenses ... esp when doing a cover artists are constrained
-
Yes: ♻ @tekk and you can only fork it if you have at least a basic knowledge of writing legal things, if you want it to work.
-
@greg yes: there exists evidence of Free licenses gaining in popularity... even with NC and ND in the mix. I suspect *because* of it.
-
@greg by non commercial do you mean non-copyright-infringing filesharing?
-
@laurelrusswurm I mean sharing of copyrighted (sic) works in a noncommercial fashion (P2P). The Surprisingly Free podcast I linked is good.
-
@laurelrusswurm like, with NC and ND, opponents need not embrace and extend !CC to keep their power, it's already done it to itself
-
@laurelrusswurm should others have a say on what *I* can do with *my* computer, my disk, my printer, my paper, my ink? no, thanks
-
@laurelrusswurm NC and ND promote the part of CC that's actually against the commons
drew Roberts likes this. -
@greg ... the cost in human terms would be much better avoided.
-
@greg besides jettisoning NC and ND, I'd expand CC's copyleft options with a source-included license such as GNU SFDL
-
@lxoliva I see... your freedom is more important than their freedom. Personally I prefer a future where everyone's freedom is respected.
-
@lxoliva There is more chance of achieving that if people are allowed to learn and make their own choices.
-
@laurelrusswurm you're (again) confusing freedom and power. I don't want to be subjugated by others' power
-
@laurelrusswurm that sounds like a reason to exclude licenses that deny choices
-
@laurelrusswurm it's not my *freedom* to decide what you can store on your hard drive; if a law entitles me to it, it's my *power* over you
-
@lxoliva excluding licenses that you deem unfree denies others the right to make their own choices.
-
Making a copy (of music) for personal use is legal in Canada. Sharing copies with others is not. http://identi.ca/url/73336780 !copyright
-
Removing NC / ND from the Creative Commons will remove ~1/3 of the music from my podcast. Metal Musicians couldn't care less re: remixes !cc
-
@snapl which means they're misusing the license, doesn't it? (ok with commercial remixes = no ND, NC).
-
@laurelrusswurm Choosing how to use unjust power granted by copyright law is not a matter of freedom. It's choosing how to subjugate people.
-
@bobjonkman That's ridiculous. The existing licenses won't magically disappear, and if they did the music wouldn't go with them.
Kẏra likes this. -
err, that should've been @snapl sorry @bobjonkman
Kẏra likes this. -
@kevingranade "couldn't care less" = They don't want remixes. Hence the ND / NC clause is what they want.
-
@dpic Bands want to say they're OK with sharing. New licenses wouldn't say as much.
-
@dpic what’s your foundation to the naming of copyright as “unjust”? — I’m interested in yours. Mine: http://ur1.ca/9xsyz - german
-
Biggest problem with © is having to ask every band if they're OK with sharing or not. CC is a blanket to say "I'm OK with it, provided..."
-
@snapl it's too bad metal musicians don't see a link with industrial.
-
@douglasawh Even industrial musicians don't necessarily like the Doctorow-remix crowd. See Chris Randall's screed.
-
@laurelrusswurm what's illegal?
-
@snapl aah, misunderstood. I'm for the "call it something else" solution, NC/ND works aren't part of the "commons" IMO…
Mike Linksvayer likes this. -
@snapl well, of course not. Not everyone uses CC at all.
-
@laurelrusswurm like they couldn't come up with the license wording on their own? you mean CC is *forced* to work for them?
-
@lxoliva why can’t they just keep offering licenses for content I am allowed to send to my friends, even though not change?
-
@lxoliva *I* don’t like stuff I cannot change, but I prefer stuff I can pass on to stuff I cannot.
-
@bobjonkman C-11 got royal assent. It's now illegal (s.29.22)to make a personal copy if you have to circumvent TPM (ri…
-
@douglasawh copyright infringing p2p like BitTorrent is illegal #GoesBothWays …but making personal music copies is legal http://ur1.ca/a1i05
-
@arnebab of course they can! I just think they shouldn't, for such works are not in the commons, thus betraying the goal
drew Roberts likes this. -
@arnebab maybe offer such ND licenses from Creative Museum or so; can transition to commons when old enough ;-)
-
@1111aether !C11 is still not in force http://www.ur1.ca/a1i1s
-
True, but not yet: #BillC11 is not yet in force; "a day or days to be fixed by order of the Governor in Council" http://ur1.ca/a1i21 #C11
-
@lxoliva I think the NC licenses are pretty important. IIRC Steve Losh started with BY-NC-ND and now simply uses BY.
-
@arnebab People who have thought about copyright reform for years are annoyed the rest of the world has not caught up; they want change NOW.
-
@bobjonkman Yeah but it's got assent, we're no longer taking the the "pay a levy on digital media and make copies fo…
-
@laurelrusswurm Yeah, but it's now a question of when to start enforcing :(, not whether or not to make it illegal :( R…
-
@1111aether Perhaps it will come into force when the manufacturers have their newly minted competition killing #DRM in place
-
@laurelrusswurm ...and nickelback too?! ;) We can hope :)
-
@laurelrusswurm I think what they have now will suffice
-
@1111aether Thanks... its very easy to lose perpective
-
@laurelrusswurm You're right though, that clause is suspicious ('normally' things go into force on the day of assent)
-
@1111aether Seems that way; after all that effort to ram it though, why haven't they?
1111aether likes this. -
@laurelrusswurm A very good question.
-
because of the confusion for one. and the wasted time. and the extra difficulty of search. and more.
-
Fine, and I would ignore it just the same. Or perhaps those wanting to license NC-ND would write and brand their own license.
-
and? they are happy to deny the world their rightful Freedom. plus, there are other non-Free licenses and the fracture does no harm.
-
i say the fracture does no harm as the Free and the non-Free CC licenses are not a part of the same commons in the first place.
Mike Linksvayer likes this. -
the other side was quite happy to force copyright on all works, marked or not.
-
we do that now in countries where slavery is illegal. shall we go back and start respecting peoples freedom to become slaves and to own them
-
@zotz Do you really lose time? For me it’s very nice to see a CC footer: I see directly which rights I have. Much better than before…
-
we hash this out all the time but source is hard to pin down. certainly we should add a source recommended to plain BY-SA
-
@zotz If one-way cc by-sa → GPLv3 or later works out, I’ll be happy with cc licenses - and can finally recommend them.
Mike Linksvayer and Jason F. McBrayer like this. -
and there are complaints that that is insulting. you cant comfortably mix the Free and the non-Free.
-
as we see with the GPL vs BSD, MIT, Apache, it is hard enough to mix the copyleft and permissive Free.
-
dienstags likes this.
-
I think mixing the Free and non-Free under one banner harms CC and betrays the idea of a creative *commons*
Mike Linksvayer likes this. -
but laws show no improvement in this area, only worsening.
-
@zotz oh damn, am I really arguing *for* NC? … guess so. To change society, you must remember those who start with the first steps.
-
Not necessarily. Much legislation has an "activation date" built in. 1 January or 1 July are popular dates to bring legislation into force
-
@zotz yes, laws are getting worse ~ which will help people gain awareness, the same way electoral reform is starting to get a foothold here.
-
and this is a big problem
-
they did with Free software. that is an unproven assumption with evidence to contradict it.
-
@kuro what on earth are you talking about? @professorkliq @davidrovics and others don't need lawyers to deal with CC. T…
-
or at a *minimum* to create a FreeCC brand that the Freedom folks can promote without confusion. been asked for for years.
-
@zotz ND and NC are PART of the Creative Commons suite *now* ... why don't those of you who want to change make your own fork.
-
@zotz The freedom is already denied.
-
because of creative commons stated influence history and its name, creative commons. nc and nd are not part of a commons. they don't belong.
-
but who knows, it may come to that at some point. depends on how uncomfortable things get. the incompatible Free-copyleft silos = no good
-
@zotz It would do extraordinary harm because the rest of the world is just beginning to hear about Creative Commons.
-
but you don't have to have the Free and non-Free licenses under the same brand. for one it would avoid these constant discussions.
-
@zotz that is the reality NOW. Creators considering switching from © "all rights reserved" are more likely to with NC and/or ND.
-
the licenses are mixed brand wise. they are all CC licenses but the Free and the non-Free do not coexist well.
-
not hard to mix code, hard to mix the "community" peacefully.
-
and I would hate to see that as GPL does not try and protect works other than code.
-
I would like to see BY-SA <-> GPL compatibility down the road though when the FSF and CC work together to achieve that in a good way.
-
way too much time. sign up for kompoz, go about your daily business as if you were only interested in Free works, see how much extra effort
-
fine but perhaps because they can still get the good CC buzz/vibes while not making the commitment to Freedom. separate the brands at least.
-
they would still hear about CC. and perhaps the Free software folks would feel better promoting the brand too. extra push.
-
@zotz And I bet @rms or somebody would quibble with "free software (popularly marketed as “open source software”)" http://ur1.ca/a1fyu
-
@arnebab nobody's arguing they should retroactively cease to exist. they just don't belong in a commons
-
@zotz how about “same/equivalent source format as provided by upstream”? as in, pass on as much “sourceness” as you got
-
@arnebab yeah, it would be great if free licenses were in a single continuum with one-way compatibility, like say BY->SA->SFDL->GPL
Arne Babenhauserheide likes this. -
♻ @zotz: I think mixing the Free and non-Free under one banner harms CC and betrays the idea of a creative *commons*
-
@arnebab must not forget the end goal either, and not start a negotiation asking for less than what you want
-
@zotz freelcommons anyone? :-)
-
@laurelrusswurm One problem with having so many CC licenses is that they make searching tedious. Often we need BY or BY-SA or PD.
-
@laurelrusswurm And unless we're using the CreativeCommons search engine, we have no good way to get the appropriate search filter. :-(
-
@dper searching where?
-
@dper there are a mere SIX !cc licenses but *12* Creative Commons Search Tabs http://search.creativecommons.org/ :P
-
@laurelrusswurm Anywhere. Flickr, Wikimedia Commons, Google, wherever. Append "Creative Commons" and get a mix of CC results, some useless.
-
@laurelrusswurm Yes. I particularly like the check boxes: (1) use for commercial purposes and (2) modify, adapt, or build upon.
-
@dper I don't know what you are looking for specifically, but Jamendo, FMA, flickr and others have searches by license.
-
@douglasawh I'm not looking for anything. I'm saying one complaint about NC and ND is that for naive search engines, they clutter results.
-
@dper I dont think CC should be making policy decisions based on websites that don't know how to build an appropriate metadata system.
laurelrusswurm likes this. -
@douglasawh Sok with me. Just wanted to highlight a problem many of us often have with NC and ND. Blame it on whoever you like. :-)
-
@dper I remain disappointed google is the only serach engine with licensed-for-reuse image search
-
@laurelrusswurm not me. Good change will take a very long time. NC/ND nice example of wanting little bit NOW to detriment of long term.
-
@csolisr by far the most useful dent in these giant threads. Congratulations! :-)
Carlos Solís likes this. -
@dper not at Wikimedia Commons; it excludes nonfree. Also if you search via search.creativecommons.org free checkboxes preselected.
-
@zotz I would prefer to see the GPL continuing on the road it started with v2→v3: more generality and better suited to all works.
Mike Linksvayer likes this. -
@zotz by-sa ⇔ GPL is not possible, because by-sa cannot require source for practical reasons (filesize) and GPL must have it.
-
@lxoliva I think they are already making a nice distinction there by saying “they are the commons, but not free culture”.
-
@lxoliva going further would likely divide our community quite badly and keep people away who start with NC and leave it out later
-
@zotz The main effort for me is finding works with cc licenses at all. After that, most sites have nice selectors.
-
@zotz for me CC is a way for the artist to say “you may do this” and for the user to say “I only want to see what I can use”.
-
@lxoliva I’m cannot negotiate with artists. I try to convince them that free culture is the better way for them, too.
-
@arnebab what kind of commons is it when the cow can't turn the grass into milk, or the milk can't be sold?
Mike Linksvayer likes this. -
Yup, but unless the order (or fixed date) is specifically written in, it defaults to the day of assent...which leads us…
-
Completely agree. I find it problematic when the Free-as-in-Freedom mindset is clamped over the CC spectrum with "accepted licenses".
-
simple enough for by-sa to say if the covered work is code, source is required per gpl.
-
kompoz does too but the filter is only applied during search, it needs to be applied during site use, I don't want to encounter non-Free
-
look at the staff picks on the front page. can't tell which are Free. for that you must click on each one then scroll down & look. wastetime
-
and for the deriving artist. but it needs to be a site filter, not a search filter.
-
also, write ups often just say the movie is available under a cc license and then give a link. you have to follow the link to see. wastetime
-
that would be fine but they need a change of heart possibly, they don't believe non-code must be Free.
-
Free software has examples of one way that works.
-
Then what about text? A story to be read by humans, but using Markdown syntax. Or LaTeX. That gets muddy very quickly.
-
the people who use the licenses are mixed together despite their very different goals. it creates "fun" for elastic definitions of the word.
Rob Myers likes this. -
I prefer the one-way compatibility: If you include code, you have to provide sources (because then you likely have the means).
-
full ack. I’d love to have a Firefox-Extension which grays out all sites which do not have a free license.
-
if it looks anything like source and you had source, you must supply it per the gpl requirements.
-
A standard to define the license (I assume that exists), which gets used by FF. Maybe even for links (check target, unfree → Gray)
-
something like libreJS, but for the content.
-
the gpl does not provide the protections needed by photographs that I want to see the next by-sa include. my take.
-
good but still an issue as many sites with Free licenses link to works that are not Free.
-
better...
-
that’s why I’d like the GPL to include provisions which suffice to secure your photographs. I think that’s where they belong.
-
would be nice to have an option like this. wonder how much it would slow down page rendering?
-
linking to other sites cannot be prevented without limiting free speech → that’s a step I am not willing to take.
-
I would be very happy if it would.
-
but having my browser notify me that the link would bring me to an unfree page if I clicked it would be nice.
-
I think it would not slow down the rendering, since the ❤ or ★ can simply be added after rendering - if need be by Javascript.
-
main problem: your browser has to download every page. That’s what made so much problems with preloading (auto-filling of forms, etc)
-
-
@arnebab there's a <meta name="copyright"...> tag http://ur1.ca/a1m37 #html
-
my comment was more in the direction of your browser plugin idea. not to in any way prevent linking.
-
exactly, so you would not waste your time with the looking if you were on a search for Free at the time.
-
right and before it could render the fancy version it would have to do that thus slowing the render as you want to see the page. right?
-
that might do it, or perhaps just as much as you got from upstream? is that good enough for code?
-
we can hope and work for that as well as look for improved judo.
-
and they are happy to keep denying it instead of trying to reverse it as best they can. (I do get your argument re baby steps though)
-
meta tags are dreadful for that: I can’t just add them from a CMS - or rather disable… (but I’ll remember it for my homepage)
-
it could just render the page and then add overlays for the links. The link checking feature would activate with a short delay.
-
is there a standard way to mark a website as GPL or CC-by-sa? Which is supported by tools?
-
ah, yes, the standard way is http://www.w3.org/wiki/HTML/Elements/link <head>…<link rel="license" href="/gpl.txt">…</head>
-
so now we only need tools which parse the license link to be able to see if content is free. Better would be using the HTML5 <link title=…>
-
@laurelrusswurm no empirical data available. now we have years of experimental data and could possibly evaluate whether…
-
@laurelrusswurm it could even be that it was a good idea then but isn’t anymore.
-
wish: tool sees <head>…<link rel="license" title="cc by-sa" href="…by-sa…">…</head> ⇒ marks site as free culture (also gpl and cc by).
-
sounds good if it is possible. wonder how involved the code would need to be.
-
@arnebab getting people to add metadata reliably and accurately...CC has been trying for 10 years. Uphill, tiny part of overall solution.
-
I actually think the marking in-browser - and ideally in-search-engine - would be huge: Allowing fans to find it quickly.
-
we could crawl the web with yacy and only add free licensed pages to the index.
-
@arnebab that's a great mass curation idea. very different from publishers adding metadata.
-
actually for marking, meta tags are pretty problematic, because you can’t just put them into a blog post.
-
and as much as I dislike Facebook: it would be nice if those users had a way to label stuff as CC, too. Without support from FB.
-
so parsing meta tags could only be a start. Longterm, the software would have to parse the site to find the license deed (<a rel…)
-
@laurelrusswurm I support your criticising of abolishing choice of -nc and -nd in !cc 4.0 licence draft
-
and to make that tool universal again, we need that deed style for the GPL, too…
-
@arnebab deed style irrelevant, just need stable identifier, which is http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html
Kuro Sawai likes this. -
@arnebab CC skipped meta tags quickly for that reason. See links in http://wiki.creativecommons.org/CC_REL for background.
-
@zotz depends on details. software source code needs to be machine readable, for one
-
@zotz plus, for proper copyleft, need to think about “no further restrictions” broadly: patents, tivoization, etc
-
@laurelrusswurm - I proposed at least condensing NC/ND into a single term - http://fsmsh.com/3461 - from Nov. 2010.
-
Unfortunately an increase in free licenses as a fraction may mean the "gateway" theory is working (or it might not).
-
not just a fan, a promoter perhaps, and a supporter perhaps as well. and possibly a collaborator or a source for material as well. #BYSA
-
right, would no further legal or technical restrictions be a workable idea or does it go too far?
-
@zotz IIRC from GPLv3 process, that fails to go far enough; some issues need explicit treatment (eg anti-DRM-circumvention)
-
I would not doubt it. You don't think it goes too far at all though?
-
@zotz similar to what I am for the folks from Battle for Wesnoth ( wesnoth.org ). I use their GPL images in a GPL RPG ( 1w6.org )
-
@zotz I approve of “you must not impose any further restrictions” of GPL, so I don't think it it goes too far, at least for software
-
@clacke You know something, I only first heard about !Creative Commons in 2009 when I asked a stranger if I could put his film on my site.
-
@clacke If it was a good idea then, it will still be a good idea until Creative Commons is a household word.
-
@clacke I've been using free licenses for what seems like a long time. One of my blogs is even CC0. Anyone else?
-
Thank you @kuro :)
-
Bingo. some of my stuff: http://ur1.ca/6oy47 http://ur1.ca/a1sq5 http://ur1.ca/a1sq6
Arne Babenhauserheide likes this. -
@forskolinfor Thank you, too; it is nice to know I am not the only one.
-
I feel good about the legal not being too far but was wondering about the technical.
-
@digitante I think the world of Nina Paley, but of course she wants to save the world instantly too.
-
did you see: http://ur1.ca/a1scs yet?
-
@laurelrusswurm Not if the restrictions are indistinct, ineffective, or redundant -- which is what I argued - http://is.gd/6Dg0hX
-
@laurelrusswurm Even more pernicious for !CC "noobs" is the false idea that the "SA" in "By-SA" and the "SA" in "By-NC-SA" are the same
-
@laurelrusswurm Yes, Nina Paley is a bit of a utopian. She's makes some good points, though -- and she practices what she preaches.
Hilton Garcia Fernandes likes this. -
@digitante Aside from the fact that these two are the most restrictive, there is quite a big difference between NC and ND
-
@laurelrusswurm As I wrote - ND is null for 99% of what people think it does. NC & ND both make derivatives awkward.
-
@laurelrusswurm NC+SA has a completely different (and non-intuitive) effect compared to SA by itself.
-
@digitane ND isn't awkward, it flat out prohibits derivatives. NC, on the other hand, allows them. #different
-
@digitante So long as the majority of the world doesn't know about copyright licenses, NONE are "intuitive"...
-
@laurelrusswurm NC+SA block exactly one use case of NC which is conversion to By-NC-ND (i.e. the derivative can block derivatives)
-
@laurelrusswurm Hah. Not as much as you think. And to the extent that it really does, it's contrary to the entire purpose of CC.
-
@laurelrusswurm NC prohibits you from doing anything "commercial" (which is a lot) with derivatives...
-
@digitante Sure, but it allows ALL non-commercial use which is fabulous. If NC keeps just one kid out of jail it will be worth it.
-
not quite, it also blocks an ARR derivative.
-
plus, if they keep it and don't get the stronger copyleft for pics in BYSA this time, I may try BYNCSA with a commercial exception. *FUN*
Carlos Solís likes this. -
one reason copyright should not be automatic.
-
well, yes and no as many of the words in them have meaning based on copyright law and not on english/whatever natural language you use.
-
If you want three (one non-Free) I say: BY, BY-SA, BY-NC-SA. 1,2,3 terms. second makes copyleft, third removes copyleft adds SA non-Free.
-
@zotz ARR ? Sounds like the Pirate Party to me :)
-
Nope. ARR = All Rights Reserved. Raw Copyright.
-
unless as you suggest you build enough SA into NC to make derivatives be NC licensed too.
-
@mlinksva's blog is CC0. I won't publish on any site that isn't BY-SA or freer. All my sites are BY-SA, and I encourage…
-
Finally I am printing the "Artbook & Writers' Guide" for #Lunatics for proofreading. Almost there! http://lunatics.tv #fb
-
@zotz I think it's okay to fold NC and NC+SA together into a single license but we should call it "NC" to avoid confusion with SA
-
@zotz NC effectively includes SA according to CC's own analysis - "deriving for commercial use is a commercial use"
-
@zotz The ONLY thing that !CC By-NC allows that NC+SA doesn't is derivatives under NC+ND. Who wants that?
-
@laurelrusswurm Opposite really -- ARR="all rights reserved". Not to be confused with ARGH! :-D
-
if we have to keep NC fine. But we still need separate branding for the Free versus the non-Free licenses.
-
"John's new movie is released under a creative commons license." will still be a problematic and time wasting statement.
-
This is where I think you are mistaken. It also allows derivatives under an ARR plan. I might use BY-NC-SA with a commercial use exception.
-
To use BY-NC with a commercial exception, I guess I would have to build the copyleft into the exception? Hmmmm.
-
Yes but it is the non-commercial use ARR possibility that you are missing.
-
@zotz OK. But who needs that use case? (By-NC -> NC-ARR). I can't think of a practical example.
-
someone who is a copyright troll and wants to sue people found sharing the adaptation?
-
We should note that @freeculture was making more of a critique of @creativecommons tactics than of their licenses http://www.ur1.ca/aagmn
Kẏra likes this.
All Identi.ca content and data are available under the