I’m an aspiring author, building a novel under CC BY-SA (it’s in french). My wish is to make it some kind of framework for others to be allowed to build more stories, or modify mine and redistribute freely, even commercially.
I don’t plan on making a living from it, there’s no way it could happen (although being paid should not be incompatible with free licenses, but that’s another discussion). The thing is, when I think about the attribution part of the license I’m choosing, I often think it’s too restrictive and should be public domain instead, if my work is really meant to be an open narrative framework.
What are your takes on the attribution license, regarding free licenses for cultural content, especially written content ?
(I’m french so if there are any french speaking people around here, feel free to answer in another language than english)
my work is really meant to be an open narrative framework.
BY-SA will ensure that your work remains an open narrative work.
The main difference between Linux and BSD is that linux is copyleft and BSD is not. Apple copied BSD and contributed basically nothing back to BSD or the FOSS community, whereas Linux is being contributed to by the larget corps in the world (including apple) and has a massive community behind it.
Just so you know, Creative Commons offers CC0, a license that is basically public domain.
Personally, for the majority of my non-software works, i always prefer CC BY-SA.
It’s a libre license that allows just enough freedoms to anyone, without allowing some people to take the same freedoms away from others (when they create a so-called derivate work from my own work).My entire website for example, meaning HTML/CSS code, written articles and other pages, as well as any included media, is released under CC BY-SA.
There are some other people who use CC NC (fair enough, although I find it too vague as a license) or, especially for written stuff like a blog, CC ND (their argument is that works of opinion don’t need modifications, which I genuinely don’t understand), but I like to act the same way I would like for anyone else in the world to act, and that’s why I go with CC BY-SA.You say that CC BY-SA is too restrictive because of the Attribution part, but not the Share-Alike one, so I guess that we have the same view on "derivative works must not take freedoms away from others… If so, I really have no idea what to suggest you, because CC0 has no Share-Alike obligation.
If I was you, I would stick with CC BY-SA :pI agree and would also stick with that. Having public domain / CC0 could mean that a commercial entity (or anyone really) republishes parts or all of your work as if it were their own without any mention of original author. And they’d be in their right to do so.
I can totally relate. I have already tried to find a solution to this problem in the past and failed, sadly. What I need is CC SA (without BY) licence. CC0 is too permissive and CC BY-SA too restrictive in some cases for my use. Time for a new licence (just joking).
There used to be a CC SA only license, but it was droped (due to the author oriented set of mind of the copyright legal framework I guess).
Yeah, I believe I have seen something about that a while ago. It makes sense, in a way. I personally would not mind if my name was omitted, but I truly want to make sure my work remains libre and copyleft. And as you explain in another comment, there needs to be a person holding the rights to be able to properly apply legal restrictions of the licence on the work. Oh, well, CC BY-SA will have to do.
Coucou ! Premièrement ce genre de projet est trop cool ! Hésite pas à poster ici si tu commences à publier !
Concernant ta question, je comprends tes hésitations. Pour moi, il faut faire la distinction entre le monde tel qu’on aimerait qu’il soit et tel qu’il est. Dans mon monde rêvé, toute la production intellectuelle serait dans le domaine public, et les gens qui la produise serait rémunérés par un salairee.
Mais aujourd’hui, j’estime que pour faire avancer la culture libre, l’outils des licences avec une condition de réutilisation sous les même condition est très efficasse, pour ne pas dire indispensable. Sinon, les travaux libres sont collectivement condamnés à être accaparés par des projets propriétaires et capitaliste.
Info bonus : qui dit license ne dit pas absence de contrat spécifiques. Si tu trouve une license trop restrictive pour certains cas particuliers potentiels, rien ne t’empêches de signer un contrat plus spécifique accordant des droit plus larges à certaine personnes sur demande.
Bon courage, plein d’amour <3
Salut, merci pour ta réponse.
Avant il y avait la licence CC SA, sans l’attribution, mais elle a été abandonnée. Je pense que juridiquement c’est trop compliqué de revendiquer un droit sans un⋅e auteur derrière, parce que le cadre légal repose sur le droit d’auteur, qu’on le rende permissif ou non.Dans mon monde idéal il n’y aurait pas de cadre juridique, parce que pas de lois (ce qui ne veut pas dire absence de règles) :D
En attendant, pour mon projet, le but est plutôt de pouvoir détacher l’œuvre de l’auteur⋅e en quelque sorte. Mais je me prend peut-être la tête pour rien. Je posterai un exemple très concret bientôt, j’en reparlerai ici.Tout ca donne envie d’une discussion intéressante ! Dommage que cet échange est pas lieu IRL j’aurais envie de parler de pleins de trucs là-dessus ! Bref, bon courage !
En tout cas ça fait plaisir de pouvoir discuter ici en français ! À une prochaine.
A une prochaine camarade gauchiste/libriste !
What is the point of an Open Narrative Framework if anyone can hide your original public domain version by attributing themselves the work and distributing it closed?
This could be made easily through SEO nowadays.
It also involves that derivatives could “improve” without giving back, which could help to other people’s needs.
Basically, what someone already pointed here about maintaining it open.
I get your point.
But if someone is taking something from public domain and distributing it closed, it doesn’t make the original story and artefacts closed. If it is acknowledged the source is public domain, only some derivative works made after it would be considered closed copyright, like Disney would do with every ancient legend they have reshaped. So it reduces possibilities but it doesn’t stop you from making your own derivative works from the original, which is still public domain.At that point however, maintaining open licensing becomes a legal war, but this kind of war can also happen with appropriation of CC BY-SA content, which also happens now and then.
My point of view is about adding to a “lore”, and not appropriating myself the authorship of a cultural sum of content that got processed through my mind. CC-BY can be far fetched too in some cases.
Some compromise I am getting to is to have single ideas of artefacts and phenomenons from my writings licensed as public domain, like a library, and more complete works like chapters or whole book under CC-BY SA (or Art Libre).
Although in certains cases, some of my short stories will be public domain too I think, because I don’t believe I should have a right on all of them, but it will be on a case by case basis.Much complex :D
First, the kind of war you try to represent with public domain and copyleft is not, in anyway comparable.
Public domain content doesn’t have almost any kind of protection agaisnt some entity (personal or not) claiming property.
In copyleft world, you don’t have only to rely in yourself, you can create a collective, organization or rely in third party collectives dedicated to that, which exist and are not a few.
The “lore” gets closed in that world since the moment that a propietary copy gets famous and doesn’t contribute back to the original, which, in fact, has no central point of avaliability but it is almost a just 1-release version that in the moment you stop, it will become difficult to track.
Here I see confusion between openness and freedom.
The freedom is in the possibility you have to get each avaliable option, and not in the number of options which is the case in openness.
In the moment that there is a possibility to choose an option which prevents choosing the rest, the freedom is gone.
Do you want avaliability almost forever? It is preferable that you mount a collective or find an entity big enough to handle it.
The “lore” gets closed in that world since the moment that a propietary copy gets famous and doesn’t contribute back to the original, which, in fact, has no central point of avaiiability but it is almost a just 1-release version that in the moment you stop, it will become difficult to track.
Yeah, you’re right. Tracking the original source (and certifiying a timestamp on it) is key in a legal framework. But why would it be more difficult for Public Domain than CC BY-SA for instance, if some reliable source certifies the content ?
I get what you’re saying, I’m not trying to be contrarian, and I do agree that the strength of Copyleft is that of the collectives. I’m also against appropriation, and I think it’s great to have a strong copyleft framework.
Aren’t there collectives fighting for public domain content too ?By the way thanks for adding to the discussion, I really appreciate that.
