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.

	▲	yjftsjthsd-h 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		... Then why would they care that it's ND?

▲

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.