This seems a fairly lit den of free open software’s proponents; so my question is:
given the case I wanted to share something super simple, say a LUT, which (IF any) license would allow for it to be used, modifyed and distributed freely without the need for attribution of any kind BUT not allowing to be sold? Just to clarify, I would be okay with anyone making money by using it but would not by monetizing the “thing” itself.
That’s it; please try to keep the answers on a practical level, it’s too hot here for an onthological thousand layer’s deep live or die fiesta hecatomb debateThanks
There is no simple answer to your question. If there are lawyers participating in this forum, they probably aren’t willing to offer legal advice on the forum. But here’s a place to start:
Thanks @Elle. I ‘ve read that one, also the copyleft derivates while making 1000 $ an hour without breaking a sweat, a bit on GNU and GPLv’s specifics and crocodilles’ favourite deserts…
Kidding aside, this is a layman dude that wants to understand if it’s possible and worth it to give a biding legal context to some absolutely unscientific conspurcation of colour in order to safeguard them from (those terrifying hypotheticals) people who may go for the easy profit. It is not that I think that what I share is precioouuusssshh, and on the practical side, one could just change a few values in the LUT and the name and would totally get away with it… it is that I want to learn how to do it properly >>>Picture breaking a bottle of champagne into a raft that it’s going to sank sooner than later <<<<
I wonder how binding and enforceable such licenses are and how one detects infringement and pursues restitution. Likely, its feasibility increases with the size of the community that cares about it.
@chroma_ghost I am an armchair lawyer: 5¢ please ;). Choose a CC license and then supplement it with your own. Probably, stating what you want is a license in itself and it is up to the user to respect it. If they disrespect you, haunt them with your chroma powers!
I wonder how binding and enforceable such licenses are and how one detects infringement and pursues restitution
I agree, lets say it has more to do with being able to do it
Likely, its feasibility increases with the size of the community that cares about it.
That should be printed and framed, then hanged tout suite on the entrance of fallen giants’ coliseum
Choose a CC license and then supplement it with your own. Probably, stating what you want is a license in itself and it is up to the user to respect it
So simple, so sharp =)
I am an armchair lawyer: 5¢ please
So first thank you@afre . Then here my grandma’s 7 arm gold chandelier a cheese sculpture made of pure cheese, 300 hundred pounds a shack full of spiderwebs and a new GPU for bitcoin diggin’
Now you can bring the armchair and popcorn to the haunt-pursuit
This is a critical thing which you should think twice about before you decide about a license. Forbidding to be sold even forbids to pack it on a CD/DVD together with e.g. GIMP and give it away for, let’s say, $1. Even if the $1 is below production cost. That would prevent your LUT to be shipped with GIMP, or ubuntu, or any other piece of software.
During my time at the university I was fairly active around the TeX typesetting system, which consists of trillions of little additional libraries from many authors. For some of the authors it was important that their stuff is not sold. That prevented inclusion in the annual DVD project that is produced by a collaboration of the different TeX user’s groups. For that reason, for years, some functionality of the software shipped was not available on the DVD and caused confusion for many users.
IMHO, if you want to protect your carefully crafted pieces, consider a license that allows selling but that ensures same conditions for everybody. With such a GPL-like license you would be able to receive improvements by derivatives and add them to your piece, and it would ensure that everybody could benefit from the improvements. As far as I understand, a “CC by sa” license would fulfil these points and I would think twice about the “nc” and “nd” parts, but, disclaimer: IANAL.
I see, hadn’t visualize such scenarios, BUT also my mindset is (maybe wrongly) in a little bit different context. Let me explain, if it’s free to distribute, the media used doesn’t matter. In your CD case, you could sell (the potential) blank CDs or DVDs to cover costs and then burn the thing free of any charge, thus practically distributing it without selling it.
Right now this is what I’ve got # To be used, modifyed and distributed freely. Not to be sold
In full fairness I’ll be probably okay if someone would remix it and then sell the new version… of course that would open a new Sarlac’s pit: what (to what extent something) is considered a remix? We could ask Tarantino
With such a GPL-like license you would be able to receive improvements by derivatives and add them to your piece, and it would ensure that everybody could benefit from the improvements.
Thank you kindly for pointing that out as also seems a key thing to understand. I was reading on GPL licensing but it felt like a total overkill, we’re talking about a LUT miserabilis
As far as I understand, a “CC by sa” license would fulfil these points and I would think twice about the “nc” and “nd” parts, but, disclaimer: IANAL.
I’ve share a lot of my work with different CC licensing flavours; presets, LUTs, etc. always with no license but an afre’s “expressed intent”. Trying to learn new tricks before I’m too old of a dog
About the ANAL thing seems a bit too drastic XD
Totally OT but for closing the gap between Tarantino and Star Wars
Thanks
>>>Picture breaking a bottle of champagne into a raft that it’s going to sank sooner than later <<<<
my grandma’s 7 arm gold chandelier
a cheese sculpture made of pure cheese, 
a shack full of spiderwebs and a new GPU 
for bitcoin diggin’
