drummyfish/less_retarded_wiki
5
1
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull requests Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity

Update

Browse source
This commit is contained in:
Miloslav Ciz 2024-03-18 14:04:06 +01:00
parent 272ed022c3
commit 4533fde60c
13 changed files with 1723 additions and 1713 deletions
Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

4
creative_commons.md
View file

@ -24,7 +24,9 @@ Here is a comparison of the Creative Commons licenses/waivers, from most free (b
| Creative Commons Attribution NoValue | CC BY NV | no | yes | yes | no | no |forced | yes | [joke](joke.md) license by Question Copyright :) |
| none (all rights reserved) | | NO! :((( |NO! :( |NO! :( |NO! :( |FUCK YOU|FUCK YOU | FUCK YOU | [proprietary](proprietary.md) fascist option, prohibits everything, DO NOT USE |
There Creative Commons "paradox": there seems to be a curious pattern noticeable in the world of Creative Commons licensed works (and possibly [free culture](free_culture.md) and [free software](free_software.md) in general) -- the phenomenon is that **the shittier the [art](art.md), the more restrictive license it will have**. { I noticed this on opengameart but then found it basically applies everywhere. ~drummyfish } Upon closer inspection it doesn't look so surprising after all: more restrictive licenses are used as a slow and careful transition from "all right reserved" world, i.e. they are used by newcomers and noobs who fear that if they don't enforce attribution people will immediately exploit it. More skilled people who have spent some time in the world of free art and published more things already know this doesn't happen and they know that less restrictive licenses are just better in all aspects.
Out of Creative Commons licenses/waivers **always use [CC0](cc0.md)**, that's the only one aligned with [our goals](lrs.md), it's the one that's closest to completely rejecting any control over the work. Even though legally and practically there probably won't be such a large difference between CC0 and let's say CC BY, the mental jump to absolute public domain is important (small step for lawyer, huge leap for freedom) -- it's known that people who use the imperfect licenses such as CC BY SA still feel a small grip and authority over their work, they still have to overlook that the license "isn't violated" and sometimes even start making trouble (see e.g. the infamous meltdown of David Revoy over his "moral rights being violated with [NFTs](nft.md)" despite his work being CC BY SA { Thanks to a friend for finding this. ~drummyfish }). Don't do this, just let go. If you love it, let it go.
There **Creative Commons license paradox**: there seems to be a curious pattern noticeable in the world of Creative Commons licensed works (and possibly [free culture](free_culture.md) and [free software](free_software.md) in general) -- the phenomenon is that **the shittier the [art](art.md), the more restrictive license it will have**. { I noticed this on opengameart but then found it basically applies everywhere. ~drummyfish } Upon closer inspection it doesn't look so surprising after all: more restrictive licenses are used as a slow and careful transition from "all right reserved" world, i.e. they are used by newcomers and noobs who fear that if they don't enforce attribution people will immediately exploit it. More skilled people who have spent some time in the world of free art and published more things already know this doesn't happen and they know that less restrictive licenses are just better in all aspects.
## See Also