Quote:
Originally Posted by rogue_librarian
That's simply not true.
No. It's a legally binding license, meaning you're free to do certain things provided you adhere to certain conditions. If you're free to do these things anyway (in a fair use context, say) you don't have to follow it's terms ("polite request", in this case, true enough) but where you don't you're given additional rights that you would otherwise not have.
You might well wish for this to be the case, but copyright law says differently.
It would obviously depend on the work. I can easily imagine, say, a sculptor creating a piece of work that he wouldn't want to be modified by anybody else.
Even if that's true in your jurisdiction (it's not in mine, rest assured) this is hardly a fault of the license.
Well, yes. Copyright is a fact of life. It exists of whether you want it to or not, covering your works as well. If you want people to do be able to do all these things you better tell them clearly and in no uncertain legal terms.
|
All good points, but I think Public Domain is the way to go for what I want, and also to kill the ego, I will use anonymous as a name. Digital fiction is an exciting world to be involved in at the moment, whichever way you look at it
