Conversation
Notices
-
@hannes2peer cc-by-nc it's not free as... in Free Cultural Works Definition
http://freedomdefined.org/Definition
That definition it's world wide accepted including FSF.
Anyway, while every one can have it's own definition of freedom, the problem it's that NC doesn't allow copyleft
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft
So, for example you can't share pictures from quit.im at copyleft projects (with cc-by-sa) like Wikipedia.
@mmn
-
@mmn non-commercial it's a very ambiguous term. There are people that uses pictures to earn money from a capitalist perspective and there are people, social movements and communities that can use it for ethic purposes.
I don't like the idea that good people can't use my works because maybe bad people can use it too. And also if bad people use it, they must to give me attribution sharing my work and enabling others to know it and use it.
If we use NC clauses we close the use of our works to a lot of nice people.
@hannes2peer
-
@mmn but commercial entities that uses copyleft works don't appropriate (free) culture. Just use it, share it and spread it (and most of they refuses to use it due to SA clause).
I think the license it's right. And the question it's if others can earn money with your work, not witch others or why. Because it will be impossible to establish criteria while every human think good and bad people are the ones he knows.
If Free Software has a non-commercial clause, people can't earn money giving support, for example. And of course we don't have Linux distributions as we knows.
-
@mmn BTW I was not talking about bring Wikipedia pictures to quit.im, but reuse quit.im pictures in Wikipedia (that we can't because the license)
@hannes2peer