Just saw a CC No Derivatives licensed artwork fly through my timeline. I have opinions on -ND:

Short version:
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 in my opinion fracturing the software sphere with confusing broken licenses a business would never touch is a good thing

@penny now go ahead to Pleroma's git repository, check all the dependencies, and imagine they all use incompatible licenses.

And then try to write a complicated piece of software and release it for free onto the world, without risking somebody who might disagree with you on something sues you for it.

Licensing compatibility is the *superpower* of FLOSS. Undermining it is exactly what corporate drones would *love*. They don't care that much about your code, as long as nobody uses it for anything serious.

@rysiek I just disagree. As a small user, I can do whatever I want, I can steal, I don’t care about licenses. Only lawyers care about licenses, and I can’t afford one.

@penny well if you don't care about licenses, why are you debating stuff about licenses?

Thing is, nobody cares about licenses, until they do. Until it turns out that their little project has grown to a point where it suddenly matters, but now they're stuck.

I'm probably not going to convince you. That's cool. I hope you never bump into this issue in any of your personal projects.

You might want to not make public statements about your potential intent to infringe on software licenses, though. Stay safe!

· · Web · 1 · 0 · 2
@rysiek Because I do care about how licenses affect businesses- which is, I hope they suck eggs and have to pay someone to write their own damn code.

I think anti capitalist licenses accomplish this, if not from being well written, from not being well written.

and no that’s ridiculous, people aren’t secret about the fact that they pirate, it’s not a secret that everyone breaks licenses and intends to break licenses all the time forever
Sign in to participate in the conversation
Mastodon for Tech Folks

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!