proxy70

Creative Commons

Creative Commons (CC) is the forefront [1]non-profit organization
promoting [2]free culture, i.e. basically relaxation of [3]"intellectual
property" (such as [4]copyright) in [5]art. One of the most important
contributions of the organization are the widely used Creative Commons
[6]licenses which artists may use to make their works more legally free
and even put them to the [7]public domain.

Generally speaking Creative Commons brought a lot of good -- not only did
it bring attention to the issues of "[8]intellectual property", it made a
huge number of people and organizations actually relax or completely waive
their rights on works they create. We, [9]LRS, especially appreciate the
[10]CC0 public domain waiver that we prefer for our own works, like did
many others, and other licenses such as CC BY-SA are still popular and
better than "all rights reserved". However Creative Commons is still a
big, centralized organization prone to corruption, it will most definitely
suffer the same degeneration as any other organization in history, so
don't get attached to it.

TODO

Licenses

Creative commons [11]licenses/waivers form a [12]spectrum spanning from
complete freedom (CC0, [13]public domain, no conditions on use) to
complete [14]fascism (prohibiting basically everything except for
non-commercial sharing). This means that NOT all Creative Commons licenses
are [15]free cultural licenses -- this is acknowledged by Creative Commons
and has been intended. Keep in mind that as a good human you mustn't ever
use licenses with [16]NC (non-commercial use only) or [17]ND (no
derivatives allowed) clauses, these make your work non-free and therefore
unusable.

Here is a comparison of the Creative Commons licenses/waivers, from most
free (best) to least free (worst):

name abbreviation free use share remix copyleft attribution non-commercial comment
culture
[19]public domain,
copyright
[20]waiver, no
[18]Creative CC0 yes :) yes yes yes no :) no need :) no :) restrictions, most
Commons Zero :) :) :) freedom, best,
sadly doesn't waive
patents and
trademraks
requires
[22]attribution to
Creative yes yes authors, *: limits
Commons CC BY yes?* yes?* :) :) no :) forced :( no :) some uses ("anti
[21]Attribution DRM"), rejected by
[23]copyfree,
rather don't use
retired, secret
license, no longer
Creative yes yes yes recommended by CC,
Commons CC SA yes :) :) :) :) yes :/ no need :) no :) pure
Sharealike copyleft/sharealike
without forced
attribution
Creative requires
Commons yes yes yes attribution to
Attribution CC BY-SA yes :) :) :) :) yes :/ forced :( no :) authors and
Sharealike copyleft (sharing
under same terms)
Creative [24]proprietary
Commons NO! yes yes yes fascist license
Attribution CC BY-NC :((( but but but yes :/ forced :( yes :( prohibiting
NonCommercial commercial use, DO
NOT USE
Creative [25]proprietary
Commons NO! yes yes NO! fascist license
Attribution CC BY-ND :((( but but :( yes :/ forced :( no but prohibiting
NoDerivs modifications, DO
NOT USE
Creative [26]proprietary
Commons fascist license
Attribution CC BY-NC-ND NO! yes yes NO! yes :/ forced :( yes :( prohibiting
NonCommercial :((( but but :( commercial use and
NoDerivs even modifications,
DO NOT USE
Creative [27]joke license by
Commons CC BY NV no yes yes no no forced yes Question Copyright
Attribution :)
NoValue
[28]proprietary
none (all NO! NO! NO! NO! fascist option,
rights :((( :( :( :( FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU prohibits
reserved) everything, DO NOT
USE

Out of Creative Commons licenses/waivers always use [29]CC0, that's the
only one aligned with [30]our goals, it's the one that's closest to
completely rejecting any control over the work. Even though legally and
practically there probably won't be such a large difference between CC0
and let's say CC BY, the mental jump to absolute public domain is
important (small step for lawyer, huge leap for freedom) -- it's known
that people who use the imperfect licenses such as CC BY SA still feel a
small grip and authority over their work, they still have to overlook that
the license "isn't violated" and sometimes even start making trouble (see
e.g. the infamous meltdown of David Revoy over his "moral rights being
violated with [31]NFTs" despite his work being CC BY { Thanks to a friend
for finding this. ~drummyfish }). Don't do this, just let go. If you love
it, let it go.

There Creative Commons license paradox: there seems to be a curious
pattern noticeable in the world of Creative Commons licensed works (and
possibly [32]free culture and [33]free software in general) -- the
phenomenon is that the shittier the [34]art, the more restrictive license
it will have. { I noticed this on opengameart but then found it basically
applies everywhere. ~drummyfish } Upon closer inspection it doesn't look
so surprising after all: more restrictive licenses are used as a slow and
careful transition from "all right reserved" world, i.e. they are used by
newcomers and noobs who fear that if they don't enforce attribution people
will immediately exploit it. More skilled people who have spent some time
in the world of free art and published more things already know this
doesn't happen and they know that less restrictive licenses are just
better in all aspects.