26 Jan 2017
I have decided to license this site as CC BY-SA 4.0. Here was my thought process.
What Would Stallman Do?
I’ve never chosen a license for a non-software creative work before. The go-to resource for free software licensing is the Free Software Foundation. What license do they use for their site? CC BY-ND 4.0. This license does not allow derivative works, which means that the FSF does not consider it a free license. So what gives?
You can find their reasoning here. The relevant excerpt:
Works that express someone’s opinion—memoirs, editorials, and so on—serve a fundamentally different purpose than works for practical use like software and documentation. Because of this, we expect them to provide recipients with a different set of permissions: just the permission to copy and distribute the work verbatim. Richard Stallman discusses this frequently in his speeches.
I can understand that, but it still doesn’t seem right to license this site in such a way. A nonfree license is a tool of discouragement, and I want to encourage people to view and use my work and thoughts.
Let’s see what the FSF has to say about CC BY-SA 4.0.
This is a copyleft free license that is good for artistic and entertainment works, and educational works.
Copyleft is good; modified versions of open works should be open. Is my work educational? Sure, let’s go with that.
Comments: View this post's comment section here.