3 ms·
> Then why would you license as CC? Your criticism should point to CC itself then. The reason to use it is that it takes a few bytes to express your license w
by lixtra 8y ago
> Then why would you license as CC?
Your criticism should point to CC itself then. The reason to use it is that it takes a few bytes to express your license which would otherwise a lawyer to consult you. And on the other hand a potential user immediately understands whether the license is appropriate for her.
- ghaff 8y agoI don't have a criticism of CC. (Well, I do of non-commercial and no-derivatives, but that's a separate discussion.) If someone's willing to share their creative output in an open source way, CC-BY-SA, CC-BY, and CC0 are perfectly fine licenses. If someone's not, then they should just reserve rights.
- jeena 8y agoWhat license should I use if I want to make it possible for podcasts to include my music into their compilations as is, because I have a artistic vision which I don't want to have destroyed, but not for Hip-Hop artists to chop it and use it in a different context because it isn't how I envision my art being used? Or what If I want a gallery to be able to print my pictures and show it as is, again because I put in a lot of thought and work into the coherence of my artistic vision, but I don't want video artists to chop it and reuse it in a weird setting? I think those are legitimate use cases for a license.
- ghaff 8y agoThat's the ND (NoDerivs) variant of Creative Commons. I do sorta get the "artistic vision" aspect of ND use although it's counter to the remix idea that was pretty central to the Creative Commons concept in the first place.