Add licenses

licenses/index.md

@@ -5,7 +5,7 @@ layout: default
 # Licenses
 
 I agree with free-culture licenses; I am a hippie at heart.
-I license all the content on my site under the [CC-BY-SA](TODO).
+I license all the content on my site under the [CC-BY-SA](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/).
 
 ## Other Licenses
 
@@ -20,11 +20,11 @@ The MIT and BSD licenses are more considered more "permissive" in that they allo
 Part of me wants to like this more: more freedom right?
 Sure, I suppose, but not freedom for users: the vast majority of the time this is freedom only for corporations.
 I'm sure this occasionally helps a small business, but I see the MIT and BSD licenses as mostly a way to get big corporations free software that they can then sell for a profit.
-To be clear, you can do this under the GPL as well, but at least with the GPL and changes made by a corporation making money from the software get shared back with the author and makes the *software* better for everyone.
+To be clear, a corporation is allowed to sell GPL software; however, as a GPL-licensed work, the corporation must share the code with the original developer of the program and anyone who purchases the software from the company.
 
 ### CC-based licenses
 
-Creative Commons (CC) based licenses are more for artistic works (like blog articles and information) and apply very rarely to programs.
+Creative Commons (CC) based licenses are more for artistic works (like blog articles and music) and apply very rarely to programs.
 CC licenses may have a combination of a few different restrictions, or no restrictions (also known as the CC0 or Public Domain license).
 
 The restrictions are as follows:
@@ -34,12 +34,15 @@ The restrictions are as follows:
 * NC (Non-commercial)--the material may not be used for profit.
 * ND (No derivatives)--the material may only be used as is; you may not edit the materials and redistribute them.
 
-I considered giving this site a CC-based license but ultimately decided against it;
-you never know who is going to just take it and then credit you in tiny invisible letters at the bottom of the page.
-So to avoid that whole fiasco, I use the final license:
+I decided to license my site as CC-BY-SA.
+This means that as long as I am attributed and the source material is licensed the same as my own site, then redistribution and alteration of the material is permitted.
 
 ### Copyright
 
 Full copyright means no derivatives or redistributions may be made in any way, shape or form.
-I use this on my own pages to protect myself, but I'd be happy to let someone use it no problem if they just ask.
-It gives me a bit more control over where my content ends up.
+This is an outdated model, I think anyway.
+The truth is: free-culture licenses are necessary in a world full of death plus 70 years (or similar) copyright terms.
+But I want freedom to be perpetuated, not stolen for corporate greed, hence the GPL above the BSD/MIT and CC-SA above CC.
+I have never considered licensing with NC (non-commercial) for one reason: I run a small business;
+I know what it's like to have all sorts of licensing restrictions stopping you from making a few bucks.
+I license my site content under CC-BY-SA as an act of good faith, with the hope that there is something better than the copyright regeime we are currently under.