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.
@rysiek Those licenses are completely unenforceable because they could plausibly interfere in the pursuit of law enforcement.
@atomicpoet also that, yeah. But even on the purely philosophical level (and they are all very philosophical) they are counter-productive.
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!