Creative Commons Creative Commons (CC) is the forefront [1]non-profit organization promoting [2]free culture, i.e. basically relaxation of [3]"intellectual property" (such as [4]copyright) in [5]art. One of the most important contributions of the organization are the widely used Creative Commons [6]licenses which artists may use to make their works more legally free and even put them to the [7]public domain. Generally speaking Creative Commons brought a lot of good -- not only did it bring attention to the issues of "[8]intellectual property", it made a huge number of people and organizations actually relax or completely waive their rights on works they create. We, [9]LRS, especially appreciate the [10]CC0 public domain waiver that we prefer for our own works, like did many others, and other licenses such as CC BY-SA are still popular and better than "all rights reserved". However Creative Commons is still a big, centralized organization prone to corruption, it will most definitely suffer the same degeneration as any other organization in history, so don't get attached to it. TODO Licenses Creative commons [11]licenses/waivers form a [12]spectrum spanning from complete freedom (CC0, [13]public domain, no conditions on use) to complete [14]fascism (prohibiting basically everything except for non-commercial sharing). This means that NOT all Creative Commons licenses are [15]free cultural licenses -- this is acknowledged by Creative Commons and has been intended. Keep in mind that as a good human you mustn't ever use licenses with [16]NC (non-commercial use only) or [17]ND (no derivatives allowed) clauses, these make your work non-free and therefore unusable. Here is a comparison of the Creative Commons licenses/waivers, from most free (best) to least free (worst): name abbreviation free use share remix copyleft attribution non-commercial comment culture [19]public domain, copyright [20]waiver, no [18]Creative CC0 yes :) yes yes yes no :) no need :) no :) restrictions, most Commons Zero :) :) :) freedom, best, sadly doesn't waive patents and trademraks requires [22]attribution to Creative yes yes authors, *: limits Commons CC BY yes?* yes?* :) :) no :) forced :( no :) some uses ("anti [21]Attribution DRM"), rejected by [23]copyfree, rather don't use retired, secret license, no longer Creative yes yes yes recommended by CC, Commons CC SA yes :) :) :) :) yes :/ no need :) no :) pure Sharealike copyleft/sharealike without forced attribution Creative requires Commons yes yes yes attribution to Attribution CC BY-SA yes :) :) :) :) yes :/ forced :( no :) authors and Sharealike copyleft (sharing under same terms) Creative [24]proprietary Commons NO! yes yes yes fascist license Attribution CC BY-NC :((( but but but yes :/ forced :( yes :( prohibiting NonCommercial commercial use, DO NOT USE Creative [25]proprietary Commons NO! yes yes NO! fascist license Attribution CC BY-ND :((( but but :( yes :/ forced :( no but prohibiting NoDerivs modifications, DO NOT USE Creative [26]proprietary Commons fascist license Attribution CC BY-NC-ND NO! yes yes NO! yes :/ forced :( yes :( prohibiting NonCommercial :((( but but :( commercial use and NoDerivs even modifications, DO NOT USE Creative [27]joke license by Commons CC BY NV no yes yes no no forced yes Question Copyright Attribution :) NoValue [28]proprietary none (all NO! NO! NO! NO! fascist option, rights :((( :( :( :( FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU prohibits reserved) everything, DO NOT USE Out of Creative Commons licenses/waivers always use [29]CC0, that's the only one aligned with [30]our goals, it's the one that's closest to completely rejecting any control over the work. Even though legally and practically there probably won't be such a large difference between CC0 and let's say CC BY, the mental jump to absolute public domain is important (small step for lawyer, huge leap for freedom) -- it's known that people who use the imperfect licenses such as CC BY SA still feel a small grip and authority over their work, they still have to overlook that the license "isn't violated" and sometimes even start making trouble (see e.g. the infamous meltdown of David Revoy over his "moral rights being violated with [31]NFTs" despite his work being CC BY { Thanks to a friend for finding this. ~drummyfish }). Don't do this, just let go. If you love it, let it go. There Creative Commons license paradox: there seems to be a curious pattern noticeable in the world of Creative Commons licensed works (and possibly [32]free culture and [33]free software in general) -- the phenomenon is that the shittier the [34]art, the more restrictive license it will have. { I noticed this on opengameart but then found it basically applies everywhere. ~drummyfish } Upon closer inspection it doesn't look so surprising after all: more restrictive licenses are used as a slow and careful transition from "all right reserved" world, i.e. they are used by newcomers and noobs who fear that if they don't enforce attribution people will immediately exploit it. More skilled people who have spent some time in the world of free art and published more things already know this doesn't happen and they know that less restrictive licenses are just better in all aspects. See Also * [35]free culture * [36]free software Links: 1. non_profit.md 2. free_culture.md 3. intellectual_property.md 4. copyright.md 5. art.md 6. license.md 7. public_domain.md 8. intellectual_property.md 9. lrs.md 10. cc0.md 11. license.md 12. spectrum.md 13. public_domain.md 14. fascism.md 15. free_culture.md 16. nc.md 17. nd.md 18. cc0.md 19. public_domain.md 20. waiver.md 21. attribution.md 22. attribution.md 23. copyfree.md 24. proprietary.md 25. proprietary.md 26. proprietary.md 27. joke.md 28. proprietary.md 29. cc0.md 30. lrs.md 31. nft.md 32. free_culture.md 33. free_software.md 34. art.md 35. free_culture.md 36. free_software.md