Just saw a CC No Derivatives licensed artwork fly through my timeline. I have opinions on -ND:
rys.io/en/101.html

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.

#Art #Culture

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.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Mastodon on fed.im

A private and experimental Mastodon server. This server only accepts IPv6 connections, please pester you local admin if they still do not have IPv6 available.