Fun fact: when I was a freshman in college I thought my most useful contribution to free software (I was not a programmer at the time) would be to make a webcomic about two people mod'ing their house and it turning it into what we would now call a "hackerspace" (that term didn't exist then) where the whole house was slowly automated (IoT didn't exist then either). I never finished it or even got what we would call "far" at all.
But you can still find it... not that it's good...
The one thing I'm proud of about it was the level of experimentation I was doing at the time in each page. It did influence a lot of my future artwork and experiments.
Part of the reason I never finished it was "imposter syndrome" though I didn't know the term at the time. I was afraid I didn't understand the tech I was describing enough. The upside is I started learning more...
The problem with the NC is that it's counter-productive and does not achieve what artists want it to achieve.
It does nothing to stop people who do not care about licensing from "stealing" your work.
OTOH it stops people who feel strongly about licensing from using your work, making derivatives, making it popular.
It's terribly vague -- what does it even mean? If I use this CC By-NC picture in a presentation funded by a grant, is that "commercial"?
CC By-SA is way better.
@rysiek @Shamar Nobody agrees on what "noncommercial" means, and you will either block uses you want or be surprised to hear that others consider uses you feel should be prohibited they believe are allowed. Worse yet: noncommercial licenses don't compose. What happens when 100 entities later contribute to a noncommercial license, if they hope to enforce it as a revenue stream?
"noncommercial" licenses always fail.
I'm gearing up to release what I've written thus far on the web under a CC license, and I'm going with BY-SA-NC because I don't expect people to write fanfic based on my setting or adapt my work for other media, and if they do I sure as hell don't want them making money off it without coming to me first and offering me a piece of the action.
1. "I can't imagine people doing anything with X" is something I've seen in debates about Open Data (government officials saying "who would do anything with X kind of data?"), copyright, art, etc. Each time it turned out that indeed there would be people doing something.
This exists, because everyone from Linux kernel devs, through webserver devs, through OSM devs, up to OSM editors released stuff on open licenses. Nobody had this outcome in mind, and yet here we are.
I feel it makes sense to not limit the potential, not limit the possibilities, with an NC license.
This is something I have to reflect upon.
I'm under the impression that commercial exploitation destroys anything good that comes from hacking.
At times, I'd like a license stricter then AGPL for my code, just to protect it from "the market".
And I refuse to accept that being commercial is the only way to be useful to people. That's the ethics of Capitalism, and I don't like it.
Have you seen the peer production license? http://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/Peer_Production_License
I think its a bit better than a blanket NC license. What I really want is a license requiring income from a commercial entity be used to improve the software. Either by spending time working on it, or paying for others time.
Guys so what if I want something I do (code in my case) be and remain in any of its evolution a gift?
Is there anything wrong with it?
No license exists to allow this?
I know that my current license of choice (GPL and AGPL) allow this under certain conditions. And I find it annoying.
I would also agree to private myself from the opportunity to remove the gift, I just want it to remain a gift in any of its evolutions.
I don't think we'll ever see a license that keeps a work free and freedom-respecting in every possible scenario, for every person on Earth, until the end of human time. That's too tall of an order.
Remember, license enforcement is the flip side of the coin here... and it's difficult or discouraged, usually. There are very heated battles over FOSS enforcement strategy right now.
If I don't think eternal copyright is a good idea for creative works, why should it be appropriate for software?
Admittedly I'm not sure we're going to see a penguin books reissue of the first fortran compiler, but still, it should be released to the public domain.
And most of the time that's entirely enough, because derivative works become licensed anew. The original's copyright might expire, but the derivative work is still under copyright -- and that's usually where the interesting stuff is happening and what people would like to use (or lock down).
I do not WANT to give away my copyright, but I could accept to, if I was sure that the code would not be turned into a private profit.
However, accepting contributions under the same license only limit me and everybody else to that license, which might not be strict enough to prevent future explitations.
Notice there is nothing about "noncommercial" in the GPL.
That's my point, NC is not necessary to achieve what people think it's needed for. And it's counter-productive and problematic in general.
I've always read it this way too.
But recently I started to think that Stallman, as smart as he is, is still grown in a capitalist culture and subconsciously absorbed many of this culture's assumptions/requirements.
My recent answer to the "why block good uses related to money" is: because they have proved to break the good qualities of the software itself, in the long run.