2 ms·
The article correctly states that the images are licenced under one of the Creative Commons 4.0 licences, and correctly states that only non-commercial use is a
by Freak_NL 7y ago
The article correctly states that the images are licenced under one of the Creative Commons 4.0 licences, and correctly states that only non-commercial use is allowed in the third paragraph, but the author of that article mistakenly links to the CC BY 4.0 licence instead of the correct one.
The British Museum webpage you link to specifies the licence as CC BY-NC-SA 4.0.
- Freak_NL 7y agoIan has since corrected the link by the way.
- greyman 7y agoYes but it should be added that "only non-commercial use" excludes almost all practical usages. Even wikipedia doesn't allow to use non-commercial, since it's a legal minefield.
- ghaff 7y agoI'm a big fan of CC in general. And I can sort of get behind No Derivatives even though it goes against the "remix" idea that was some of the impetus for CC in the first place. (I actually learned the other week that even the FSF uses ND for media.) However, Non-Commercial is really bad. Yes, it encourages people to put their work into the commons with the knowledge that no one can legally profit off it. But it's essentially a feel-good license that lets people get warm and fuzzies for putting works into the commons even if, in practice, almost no one can use it. It's telling that CC spent literally years trying to define what NC meant and as far as I know never got to any sort of official definition.