3 ms·
The Creative Commons license implies redistribution, and that requires the ability to possess a copy of the file. It would be a bit like allowing people to uplo
by empressplay 10y ago
The Creative Commons license implies redistribution, and that requires the ability to possess a copy of the file. It would be a bit like allowing people to upload code to your website and mark it GPL, but then only re-use that code yourself and not allow anyone else to download it.
- jonathankoren 10y agoBut that's not a license violation, of either the CC or the GPL. Nothing says, "must allow redistribution of original format when not modified", and in the case of the CC, it doesn't say anything about raw files. If the creator really cared about a redistribution friendly distributor, they should have used one. YouTube ain't it, and never was.
- JetSpiegel 10y agoAnd yet, YouTube advertises the CC licence. Looks like fraudulent claims to me.
- jonathankoren 10y agoI don't know why you think that. You can download the file, either using something like youtube downloader, or from the original creator's website you can still do whatever you want to with it. I can publish a book in dead tree format that's under CC, but I don't have to provide it to you in whatever format you want just because you want it.
- mthoms 10y agoYou're right, but I think the point is they're not respecting the intent/spirit of the CC licenses (whose entire purpose is about ease of sharing). So while there may not be a technical violation, some might argue there is a moral one. Whether or not Youtube (or others) see it that way is another matter.
- jonathankoren 10y agoA moral victory and 5 dollars will get a cup of coffee.