3 ms·
The linked page literally says: > You are free to [share and adapt] for any purpose, even commercially You might be thinking of the previous* NC (Non-Commerci
by lucb1e 6y ago
The linked page literally says:
> You are free to [share and adapt] for any purpose, even commercially
You might be thinking of the previous* NC (Non-Commercial) variant, e.g. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/ https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/
If you really mean the share-alike part, i.e. that when you modify the image then anyone is free to use your derived version under the same terms, and you actually object to that clause, then I'm sorry but that's just stealing the author's free work without sharing whatever small edits you made back.
* incorrect, Non-Commercial is still an available variant of CC also in version 4.0, see u/quadrangle's comment below.
- quadrangle 6y agoUnfortunately, there's nothing "previous" about NC. It's right there with the others in 4.0: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/ https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/ But you are right that NC is the anti-commerce or rather, commercial-rights-reserved license. Without the NC, SA is indeed free for commercial use!
- lucb1e 6y agoOh, I thought I remembered them having dropped that because it was hard to define and actually reducing freedoms or something. Perhaps that was the FSF/OSI standpoint instead (though GPL never had it, so idk where this idea came from). I stand corrected about it being "previous" :)
- quadrangle 6y agoThere was a strong advocacy push for dropping NC or at least renaming it CRR (commercial rights reserved) to be clearer. But CC decided that dropping it for v4 would likely just lead to people continuing to use the v3. And if they use NC anyway, better to at least have the updated legal language than the outdated version.