Just saw a CC No Derivatives licensed artwork fly through my timeline. I have opinions on -ND:
ND doesn't stop bad things (say, appropriation) from being done, while stopping good things (say, translation) from being done.
On a broader level it makes promoting and building libre-culture together harder.
ShareAlike is as effective at stopping some bad things (say, corporations using stuff in ads) from happening, while explicitly allowing the good.
I dive deeper into my reasoning in the blogpost (inb4 "like and subscribe").
Sorry about the subtoot (kinda-sorta), but didn't want to jump into the artist's thread and do a reply-guy thing.
Obviously everyone has the right to choose whatever license they like and feel suits them best!
But I feel there is a lot of mythos around what No Derivatives can and cannot do, and I believe it is harmful to the broader libre culture movement.
Semi-related, there is a batch of new "anti-capitalist" software licenses that is getting traction. I have similar problems with them as I have with NC and ND. I guess I should write them up, too.
But tl;dr would be: fragmenting the FLOSS codebase by using incompatible and legally unclear software licenses like that is shooting ourselves in the foot; AGPL achieves the same (big corporate capitalist entities stay the fsck away), without causing that much legal incompatibility/fragmentation.
source licensing meta, legal code is code too
Re-inventing the wheel drives progress, and homogenization breeds stagnation and exclusion.
There's certainly reasons to license using the big name licenses. That it works for all of your use cases seems...shortsighted to the point of uselessness in the world outside the FLOSS ivory tower.
Why is fragmentation bad?
Maybe it's unworkable for you, or has negatively impacted your attempts to use it.
But that's not what you're saying here in these absolute statements you're broadcasting in public.
You're saying "stop innovating because i think it's a solved problem", and that's not a great message to hear when the problem is obvious and people are motivated to try something better.
(Especially given that a decade or three ago, people said the exact same things about a/gpl/etc other licenses...literally "why bother other license do this better" was things said.)
@rysiek @ozamidas The GPL licenses have real problems which the FSF isn’t fixing, and at this point the GPL licenses are mostly anti-competitive capitalist tools used to suck free labor from volunteers.
The anti-capitalist licenses are wonky, and I think a harder copyleft license would be better, but it’s a place to start.
They do need to consult a lawyer.
This Mastodon instance is for people interested in technology. Discussions aren't limited to technology, because tech folks shouldn't be limited to technology either!