Gregory's Server@rysiek Valid points. My take was always that it's about the artefact itself. So okay to showcase in commercial settings but not to sell on its own as the reason for charging money. But I see where it can make people hesitate. I'll have a think about it.
|
4 comments
 @axbom …but the way I see it (and I do have an SA-licensed blog), if somebody finds a way to monetize my SA-licensed content before I do, good on them! And there is a reasonable chance they will pay me anyway, so that I produce more of new juicy content for them to publish. That's obviously a very personal take, but I think it's worth considering. @axbom right? 🙂 Plus, some people *will* print and sell it anyway, regardless of the license. These people will just ignore the terms anyway, be it NC or SA or whatever else. Finally, all CC licenses allow you to be very clear how the attribution needs to look. You can be very specific about how it needs to be placed, etc, on a printed rendition, for example. Perhaps that's a way to deal with that issue as well, while switching to SA: |
@axbom right. So that's the biggest downside for me. NC makes the work risky to use, and thus it will not be used by projects and in contexts that you might presumably want the work to be used in.
SA solves this better in some ways. For example, no Big Corp would ever take an SA-licensed work and use it in an ad campaign or a product, film, etc, because they would have to release the whole thing under SA. Not gonna happen.
I totally get your "I don't want people to make books with my content"…