Personally, I'd liked to be more clued up on the oh-so subtle differences between the two licenses. I still feel I might be missing something. But if was forced to make a decision right away, I'd go with the new proposed license. LD pls add further background to the license you initially went with?
Copyright(s) - Edit with Clarity
an article.Hello, if you are a 'grapher this applies to you most, and if you are a subscriber it applies to you even more. I am planning to change the copyright option for the photographs.
I've been re-looking the Creative Commons (CC) license, and I feel it's not adequate enough to protect (whilst willing to share) the art (or is it the labour of love).
If you are reserving all rights, then this does not matter to you, but if you want to share, then it does. I want to change that licence, so please read through the following links (copying and pasting might dilute the legal binding jargon)
- Current CC license: Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 2.5 South Africa
- New (proposed) CC license: Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.5 South Africa
Please read them (I'm looking at you Mr. Studio83), then let me know what you feel is right, or if you have different suggestions.
The current (would be older if, we agree) is like this:
- you are okay with somebody copying you work and sharing it with anybody,
- alter, remix, adapt your work,
- if and only if they do not do that for commercial gain
- and they can only share your work by including the same license.
I prefer the 'new proposed' one because it means,
- you are okay with somebody copying you work and sharing it with anybody,
- if and only if they do not do that for commercial gain
- they do not alter your work,
- and they can only share your work by including the same license.
I like that, your thoughts?