Doctorow's use of CC-BY-SA-NC licenses for his novels as opposed to the more widespread CC-BY-SA that e.g., Wikipedia uses doesn't sit right with me. The NC (non-commercial) in general strikes me as being like the Trotskyist provision of the creative-common/open-source world. "It's not enough that people can share my contents for free. They must also not be allowed to profit off it!"
Or maybe I'm the Trotskyist for thinking CC-BY-SA-NC isn't open enough. (But really, NC doesn't really have an analogue in the code-licensing world, and for good reason: way too ambiguous.)
p
Doctorow's use of CC-BY-SA-NC licenses for his novels as opposed to the more widespread CC-BY-SA that e.g., Wikipedia uses doesn't sit right with me. The NC (non-commercial) in general strikes me as being like the Trotskyist provision of the creative-common/open-source world. "It's not enough that people can share my contents for free. They must also not be allowed to profit off it!"
Or maybe I'm the Trotskyist for thinking CC-BY-SA-NC isn't open enough. (But really, NC doesn't really have an analogue in the code-licensing world, and for good reason: way too ambiguous.)
More options
Context Copy link