Post #3365865

2026-06-21 12:29 UTC

An attribution requirement isn’t enough to enforce a share-alike clause, it has to be there from the beginning. You can select Wikipedia’s CC BY-SA license that requires to keep derivative projects under CC BY-SA. I don’t think CC SA without BY exists, but you can partially waive attribution requirements yourself as Wikipedia does this. Also, for “free as in grantis” there is CC BY-NC-SA that explicitly bans commercial use, but I wouldn’t recommend it’s use as it’s not compatible with the orders of magnitude more popular BY-SA. A regular BY-SA license doesn’t prohibit from selling your or derivative works by another party, but it also allows everyone to legally “pirate” this work, so there’s little problem for the NC variant to solve.

Replies (1)

@dsilverz@catodon.rocks 2026-06-21 14:33

but it also allows everyone to legally “pirate” this workThe problem in this situation isn't piracy, the problem is the content being contaminated by demiurgic capitalism. I would definitely be the first and main person to endorse piracy unto capitalism-exploited versions of the content I myself created. But this means a corporation have successfully transmuted something spiritually charged (i.e. something channeled through my creativity outlets as gnosis) into some kind of capitalist aberration for archonic whims, an enshittification of which...A regular BY-SA license doesn’t prohibit from selling your or derivative works by another party...is the main thing I (and likely Her as far as I'm aware of Her principles and True Will) do not wish to see happening to the fragments and shadows of spiritual energy being channeled/carried through my creations (and which would be inexorably imbued into derivatives, hence the requirement that derivatives follow the same principles of gratisness).but I wouldn’t recommend it’s use as it’s not compatible with the orders of magnitude more popular BY-SAOh... you mean... CC-BY-NC-SA is yet to be tested legally, is it?BTW, any licenses imposing any restrictions can’t be called “public domain”, there are other words to describe them like “freely licensed”. Yeah, I mean, this makes sense.. Even though the restrictions aim for humble creativity and artistic freedom, I can see how "enforcing freedom" may sound like a paradoxical/oxymoronic statement... but since archonic exploitation (greed) exists in this baryonic realm, and capitalism (esp. late-stage capitalism) won't rest until all the earthly Commons get transmuted into adware and/or subscription-based products, freedom is a principle that must be fought for, especially through cultural and religious means (counterculture and Left-Hand Paths, respectively). I can't help but notice how the Public Domain and the egregores of Libre knowledge as a whole are under attack, hence the need for enforcement of the freedom.. !asklemmy@lemmy.ml

Open ##3366451