4 ms·
Putting adverts on the website, apparently. Some projects just fiercely want to stay noncommercial, so they will object at this. I am reminded of a comment from
by gpvos 5y ago
Putting adverts on the website, apparently. Some projects just fiercely want to stay noncommercial, so they will object at this. I am reminded of a comment from the time when Wikipedia was trying to figure out how to cover their costs: The bigger danger isn't advertisers manipulating content, but that people will no longer see Wikipedia as theirs, they will see it as yet another place that corporations bombard them with adverts. — Sid http://gondwanaland.com/mlog/2007/01/02/wikipedia-advertising/#comment-70489 http://gondwanaland.com/mlog/2007/01/02/wikipedia-advertisin...
- fairity 5y ago> Putting adverts on the website, apparently. Where is this motive made apparent?
- jethro_tell 5y agoThey put ads on the site, no? edit: s/add/ads/
- asix66 5y agoInterestingly, at the bottom of freenode's website [0] is a link to a non-comercial CC license [1]. So not sure how anyone could "sell" freenode. At the top of the site is a link (not given in this post) to a commercial product, so again, not sure how they can do that given the CC license. That said, I am no legal expert. [0] https://freenode.net/ https://freenode.net/ [1] https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/ https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
- jreese 5y agoCC no-commercial does not mean the owner of the content can't commercialize it. The owner is explicitly granted all rights by law, regardless of how they license it to others. In this case, the license is to the content of the site, so someone else can reuse that content elsewhere, but not in a commercial context.
- jhugo 5y agoThe license applies to the content of the website, not the organisation itself...