3 ms·

Why?

• zalew 13y ago
  These rants cover the issues pretty well http://thispicturesucks.wordpress.com/2009/04/09/creative-commons-and-why-youre-getting-railed/ http://thispicturesucks.wordpress.com/2009/04/09/creative-co... http://thispicturesucks.wordpress.com/2009/07/13/creative-commons-and-the-case-of-the-hotel-pool-sperm/ http://thispicturesucks.wordpress.com/2009/07/13/creative-co... http://www.powazek.com/2004/02/000372.html http://www.powazek.com/2004/02/000372.html
  • klez 13y ago
    Couldn't the pool article and the nazi newsletter be considered derivative works? If so one could use a ND clause for the license.
    • zalew 13y ago
      if they drew her a mustache or painted the sperm, then it would be derivative.
      • AlexHamilton 13y ago
        Correct - it's not a derivative showing it alongside an article. Derivative refers to making a change to the work itself to create a new work.
  • mcintyre1994 13y ago
    I guess I was simplifying the issue too much. It could work with adjustments, but I think one of them might be a license modifier for "but contact me first", and due to the reasons you've presented, maybe that should even be a default. That doesn't really remove the friction we have now, and is probably too restrictive. We need something more granular that people can use, and I'm not at all convinced that exists. Hmm.
    • zalew 13y ago
      > a license modifier for "but contact me first", and due to the reasons you've presented, maybe that should even be a default now it's the same as "all rights reserved. joe@example.com", and it is the current default.
• yarrel 13y ago
  Because waaaaaaah!