From c5d23eff88f5c5bbd81f6d385bf50b7aa0b9a520 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Tait Hoyem Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:33:23 -0700 Subject: [PATCH] Add licenses --- licenses/index.md | 19 +++++++++++-------- 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) diff --git a/licenses/index.md b/licenses/index.md index fad2f8d..a486603 100644 --- a/licenses/index.md +++ b/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.