| ▲ | hypfer 2 days ago |
| ND is usually a bit sad, as it makes the thing a dead-end. The magic of the web has always been that things would continuously morph through being reinterpreted and all, and that just doesn't happen with ND. I can of course see the valid reasons why one would pick that license, but it's still.. kinda sad that it's culturally dead. |
|
| ▲ | ghaff 2 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| I discussed NC in my other comment. But, yes, ND is arguably counter the whole remix culture that was supposedly part of the impetus for Creative Commons in the first place. I do kind of see the logic behind prohibiting, say, a remix of a video or photo in a way that misrepresents the subject. But I also don't particularly like it. |
|
| ▲ | jruohonen 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| True enough; philosophically, I am still in the BY camp (a.k.a. BSD/MIT/etc.), and I do not particularly care about the NC part, but ND is increasingly important for non-code. But if they could do even the BY properly, it would be a step to the right direction (and, to some extent, I think they're doing that). |
| |
| ▲ | hypfer 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Huh. Can you elaborate why you view ND as increasingly important, whereas NC bothers you less? Because for me, it would be the exact other way round. | | |
| ▲ | jruohonen 2 days ago | parent [-] | | ND is important for those who do "authoritative writing" (for a lack of a better term); i.e., when you write with your real name, you do not want nonsense and disinformation associated with your name. | | |
| ▲ | hypfer 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Ah, yeah, in the meanwhile I've also googled your nick and saw that you're in academics. That makes a lot of sense. Thanks! | | |
| ▲ | ghaff 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Yes, I think of it more in the context of photo and video integrity, but you can certainly imagine an unscrupulous individual rewriting something and changing the meaning. Of course, I doubt a license would stop that person. | | |
| ▲ | roundabout-host 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Doesn't CC BY require to say what you changed? | | |
| ▲ | skeledrew 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | If a person would ignore one part of a license, they may also ignore other parts. | | | |
| ▲ | ghaff 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Not really. You're supposed to attribute the original creator. And if I did make major changes/additions I'd find some way to flag that. But you don't have a Github-style change log. | | |
| ▲ | roundabout-host a day ago | parent [-] | | Not really, but you can't just distribute a changed version as if it were original. That's just as illegal as if it were ND. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
