Fun fact: when I was a freshman in college I thought my most useful contribution to free software (I was not a programmer at the time) would be to make a webcomic about two people mod'ing their house and it turning it into what we would now call a "hackerspace" (that term didn't exist then) where the whole house was slowly automated (IoT didn't exist then either). I never finished it or even got what we would call "far" at all.
But you can still find it... not that it's good...
The one thing I'm proud of about it was the level of experimentation I was doing at the time in each page. It did influence a lot of my future artwork and experiments.
Part of the reason I never finished it was "imposter syndrome" though I didn't know the term at the time. I was afraid I didn't understand the tech I was describing enough. The upside is I started learning more...
The problem with the NC is that it's counter-productive and does not achieve what artists want it to achieve.
It does nothing to stop people who do not care about licensing from "stealing" your work.
OTOH it stops people who feel strongly about licensing from using your work, making derivatives, making it popular.
It's terribly vague -- what does it even mean? If I use this CC By-NC picture in a presentation funded by a grant, is that "commercial"?
CC By-SA is way better.
@rysiek @Shamar Nobody agrees on what "noncommercial" means, and you will either block uses you want or be surprised to hear that others consider uses you feel should be prohibited they believe are allowed. Worse yet: noncommercial licenses don't compose. What happens when 100 entities later contribute to a noncommercial license, if they hope to enforce it as a revenue stream?
"noncommercial" licenses always fail.
1. "I can't imagine people doing anything with X" is something I've seen in debates about Open Data (government officials saying "who would do anything with X kind of data?"), copyright, art, etc. Each time it turned out that indeed there would be people doing something.
This exists, because everyone from Linux kernel devs, through webserver devs, through OSM devs, up to OSM editors released stuff on open licenses. Nobody had this outcome in mind, and yet here we are.
I feel it makes sense to not limit the potential, not limit the possibilities, with an NC license.
This is something I have to reflect upon.
I'm under the impression that commercial exploitation destroys anything good that comes from hacking.
At times, I'd like a license stricter then AGPL for my code, just to protect it from "the market".
And I refuse to accept that being commercial is the only way to be useful to people. That's the ethics of Capitalism, and I don't like it.
Think of it this way: "non-commercial" is undefined, it *will* block a number of different uses of your work that *you* would consider noncommercial, but the authors (and lawyers) might be afraid that could be considered commercial by a court.
Why define your work via the lens of whether or not something is considered commercial?
If something is licensed NC, and somebody breaks the license, do you make them destroy their work? Do you make them pay you? What if they can't afford it?
If somebody breaks an SA license, the only thing they need to do is release it under SA for everyone. Everybody wins.
@Wolf480pl @kaniini @Shamar @cwebber @starbreaker here again ShareAlike or other forms of copyleft are way more elegant and effective than NC. You don't care if it's a company or a non-profit -- if they're okay with releasing their derivative work under the same license, that's cool.
If not, it doesn't matter what the organizational structure we're talking about.
It's clean and effective.
@Wolf480pl @kaniini @Shamar @cwebber @starbreaker it is entirely possible. However, if they release the advert as CC By-SA (as that's what we're talking about here) that means now *I* can remix it, and so can everyone on the Internets. If it's an "evil corpo", that is not going to end well for them.
Hence, they will not release it under CC By-SA. And hence they will not use by CC By-SA artwork either.
There are other reasons too, obviously (like: rigidness of evil corpo's legal departments).
And extremely anchored in corporate, commercial business models. "Let's release an ad on CC By-SA" is a non-starter, nobody would even consider suggesting that perhaps a discussion could be had regarding potentially thinking about proposing this.
@Shamar @kaniini @starbreaker @rysiek I'm skeptical of and concerned about commercial exploitation too. Problem is, "noncommercial" doesn't fix the things you'll expect it to, and will prevent things you want.
Here's a question: if Linux were noncommercial, should a community run nonprofit be legally allowed to run it in a commercially run hosting service / datacenter? Even if the hosting service profits from it? Can the cooperative collect dues?
CC's interpretation of NC is purposefully vague to be flexible: https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/NonCommercial_interpretation
In my opinion, that doesn't make it very useful; NC is mostly a barrier to combining with other FOSS licenses, especially the big copyleft licenses.
In some cases, artists and musicians feel more comfortable with CC licensing... 1/2
But, back to your example - I think a reasonable interpretation would allow use of those emojis as "not primarily intended for or directed towards commercial advantage or monetary compensation.", which is the CC interpretation (though not actual legal advice, precedent, or ruling). 2/2
@ebel @rysiek @cwebber @Shamar @starbreaker interesting... attribution can be difficult for artistic works too, e.g. combining CC graphics from multiple sources for print works or merchandise (where do you put attribution on a one inch button?).
OSM should probably also ask the contributor to license any of their original work under ODbL when they submit; dual licenses would probably make life easier in the long run, but also new versions of CC licenses can address this compatibility directly.
@diggity @rysiek @cwebber @Shamar @starbreaker
"Where do you put the attribution?" Sec 3(a) of the CC-BY-SA licence covers this.
Copyright holder gets to define a "reasonable manner" (3.a.1.i)
#OSM has a form letter ( https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3PN5zfbzThqeTdWR1l3SzJVcTg/view ) which asks the holder to agree that a mention on the osm.org/copyright page suffices.
Also CC licence forbids use with DRM (2.a.5.c), OSM licence allows it if you offer parallel download.
Have you seen the peer production license? http://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/Peer_Production_License
I think its a bit better than a blanket NC license. What I really want is a license requiring income from a commercial entity be used to improve the software. Either by spending time working on it, or paying for others time.
Guys so what if I want something I do (code in my case) be and remain in any of its evolution a gift?
Is there anything wrong with it?
No license exists to allow this?
I know that my current license of choice (GPL and AGPL) allow this under certain conditions. And I find it annoying.
I would also agree to private myself from the opportunity to remove the gift, I just want it to remain a gift in any of its evolutions.
I don't think we'll ever see a license that keeps a work free and freedom-respecting in every possible scenario, for every person on Earth, until the end of human time. That's too tall of an order.
Remember, license enforcement is the flip side of the coin here... and it's difficult or discouraged, usually. There are very heated battles over FOSS enforcement strategy right now.
If I don't think eternal copyright is a good idea for creative works, why should it be appropriate for software?
Admittedly I'm not sure we're going to see a penguin books reissue of the first fortran compiler, but still, it should be released to the public domain.
And most of the time that's entirely enough, because derivative works become licensed anew. The original's copyright might expire, but the derivative work is still under copyright -- and that's usually where the interesting stuff is happening and what people would like to use (or lock down).
Notice there is nothing about "noncommercial" in the GPL.
That's my point, NC is not necessary to achieve what people think it's needed for. And it's counter-productive and problematic in general.
I've always read it this way too.
But recently I started to think that Stallman, as smart as he is, is still grown in a capitalist culture and subconsciously absorbed many of this culture's assumptions/requirements.
My recent answer to the "why block good uses related to money" is: because they have proved to break the good qualities of the software itself, in the long run.
There have been, for example, attempts to use licensing models to dictate use of software in weapons, in animal testing, and so on.
@cwebber @Shamar @kaniini @starbreaker @rysiek on the cooperative note specifically, there is the PPL and a whole history and culture behind it, discussed at length in this P2P wiki: https://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/Peer_Production_License
...and then there's the JSON license, with the infamous "Good, not Evil" clause. That kind of thinking is good but leaves room for almost any moral justification; just ask Google ;)
IMO the friction introduced outweighs any benefit from these unenforceable clauses
In theory they are.
Sadly, sometimes in Italy, they are used to private workers from their rights.
However, my long term dream is to create an hacker cooperative where each developer has the same hour wage which is a fraction of the total income.
This way people would have no reason to compete inside the organization and all to gain from improving the productivity.
The issues are: how to decide rapidly and how to keep all serious at work...