A custom license is not necessarily creative commons or FOSS / FLOSS compliant 

That the work is distributed for free or that the code is out in open alone is not enough.

Many of the custom licenses and modifications of existing licenses have unintended consequences: many are incompatible with standardized licenses (hurting re-usability among other things), some are unenforceable, or even conflicting.

[1/3]

/ /

A custom license is not necessarily creative commons or FOSS / FLOSS compliant 

If you are a developer, a designer, an artist, a musician or a creator in general there are many licenses out there for various uses. Here are some lists:

gnu.org/licenses/license-list.

opendefinition.org/licenses/

Please consider using a standard license. (as tempting as it is to make our own rules. :D )

[2/3]

/ /

Follow

A custom license is not necessarily creative commons or FOSS / FLOSS compliant 

If you are a user of software, try to be mindful of this issue when recommending something as / alternative.

Also, if the creator is open to it, consider communicating with them about switching to a standardized license.

[3/3]


· · Web · 0 · 3 · 6

A custom license is not necessarily creative commons or FOSS / FLOSS compliant 

@eylul so also good to remind : no-derivative and no-commercial is hurting too, as it render your work only "copyable" for personnal use, and not reusable for anything including non-profit organisation that cannot function without the use of "commercial services" (think wikipedia, or local org party.... ) and nobody can remix/reuse ...
the share-alike is already protecting like the GPL is, with "viral" effect ;)

A custom license is not necessarily creative commons or FOSS / FLOSS compliant 

@Olm_e There are valid reasons to use NC licenses and at least they are standardized. (I have and still occasionally have to use them sometimes)

but yeah it is important to note that all of while they are creative commons and they give free access, they are not free culture licences. I believe CC 0, CC by, CC by-SA are the only ones that qualify as free and open. :)

A custom license is not necessarily creative commons or FOSS / FLOSS compliant 

@eylul @Olm_e
I used to release everything as CC0 and BY but moved to NC as it prevents (bigger) companies from exploiting it. I mean you can always still put a contact page for smaller creators if they want to use your work commercially. NC seems like the safest bet imo.

A custom license is not necessarily creative commons or FOSS / FLOSS compliant 

@tinyworlds @eylul if you put share alike, big companies don't like because they need also to publish all with share alike, so need to have the rights to do so and can't mix licences ... ;)
SA is practical good protection, and let fair players use and credit your work

A custom license is not necessarily creative commons or FOSS / FLOSS compliant 

@Olm_e @tinyworlds there are types of work where it is not equally foolproof but at least for things like games, yeah, it really is effective.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Mastodon.ART

Mastodon.ART — Your friendly creative home on the Fediverse! Interact with friends and discover new ones, all on a platform that is community-owned and ad-free. (翻译:DeepL)mastodon.art是艺术家和艺术爱好者的空间,而不是政治内容的空间--有许多其他的fediverse实例,你可以加入以获得更多的一般内容(而且你仍然可以从任何实例中关注你在.art上的朋友);见https://instances.social :)