What is Digg?32 Comments
- Otto, on 10/10/2007, -2/+17Solution: Use the BSD-style licenses instead. No problems there.
- Chandon, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11The article states that the CC-BY license is incompatible with the GPL because it isn't copyleft. That's blatantly wrong. In fact, a license *must* be non-copyleft (or include a relicensing provision) to be GPL compatible.
- Farticus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8SVG is code!
- Justice101, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6We all have to start somewhere, and isn't school just one big tutorial?
P.S. why can't I reply to someone whose comment I just dug down? grrrr, new comment system :( - eatsushi, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5obviously you're too stupid to be creative, otherwise you would understand the importance of innovation through sharing.
- TheOneGreatX, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Not true. Look at the top wallpaper artists on DeviantART.
- zoom1928, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3That is a good solution, but the problem with that is that there is already so much content that is under these restrictive, hateful, anti-free, anti-open licenses. Wikipedia continues to push this closed, anti-open license. Wiki has a ton of good content, but they're really hurting the contributors by pushing the CC closed license. For example, even though I've created about five dozen Wiki pages with several very good photos and diagrams I've created, I'm still not allowed to use any of the pages on my web site as they exist on Wikipedia. I have to extract the good open content from the closed content in order to reuse it. That makes contributing to Wiki not only a time consuming pain in the neck, but it is also dangerous for me legally because I could accidentally reuse some of the vast amount of Wiki content that is illegal to use. Instead, like most people I know, we've given-up on Wiki because of this Lawrence Lessig poison pill.
I just wish Wikipedia was really open. Then we could all share and learn together. Instead, we're stuck with the Byzantine mess that is CC-BY-NC-ND, CC-BY-NC-SA, CC-BY-NC, CC-BY-ND, CC-BY-SA, CC-BY, etc.. This is not why we contributed to a formerly open system.
PS: I hate the new "Your session has expired, please refresh the page before commenting." mis-feature before allowing a comment. It is ridiculous to only allow 30 seconds to create a post. This is why we have so much one-line crap on Digg. Why not allow us a reasonable amount of time to post? - wilhel1812, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3uf you even read that 4th comment, you'd not post that...
- Jerky1312, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Here is more appropriate reading material for you...
http://www.seussville.com - wolfkeeper, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3If you own the copyright you can license it in as many different ways as you want.
Only if you sell/give up the copyright to somebody are you screwed. - capiCrimm, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4if you like the ideas behind the GPL there is.
- wilhel1812, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5First: that's not true
Second: why is it bad to learn from tutorials? - capiCrimm, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3school is not a tutorial. School is an assembly line for industry workers. Subtle difference. You don't need to follow a tutorial verbatim, and you can always find a different tutorial. With School -- you comply.
- capiCrimm, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2the same holds true for programmers, you can find quite a few who only cut-and-paste *****. Every industry has that problem.
- dinostabOMG, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Well explain'd!
- FredFredrickson, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2So only individuals should have the right to profit from work? What if an individual rips you off?
- FlyCO, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4I would care for whatever can put me in jail
- omikun, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1This is giving me a headache.
- zoom1928, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1What do big companies have to do with the problems Lawrence Lessig, with his hatred of all things open, and Wikipedia have created with thses closed licenses? The big problem now are the little guys that contribute to places like Wikipedia. Big companies are usually very clear on the licensing of their content. It's usually a binary yes/no thing that is very simple to work with. With the Lessig model, you have a ridiculous collection of limitations that make it impossible to reuse content. Lessig is a lawyer and he bills by the hour. That is how they make their money. He likes complicated and unclear rules that make money for him and people of his type. Don't blame big companies for pushing the closed Lessig-licensing. This is a lawyer-created problem that the little guys are making worse by doing what Lessig tells them to do.
- daviddiaz, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Although Free licenses are very good, proprietary licenses are necessary too. As evil as you may think they are, corporations are the backbone of our economy, and they can't have people profit from their work. It would not be a good business decision for Sony BMG to release all of its music under a CC license, because they wouldn't make any money.
- SAHChandler, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1This doesn't apply to just drawn media though. I released several songs under the GPL for Open Arena, and while I'm okay with it, I'm pretty sure I can't release them under the CC license either.
- mr_england, on 10/10/2007, -4/+4The trouble is the fact that we need these licenses in the first place. Big corporations and such need to stop being selfish and fencing off the creative commons, we should all be able to share our ideas freely without having to worry about somebody ripping them off or ripping them off, then attaching viral copyrights to them.
- SAHChandler, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0:D
- trogdoor, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1"It would not be a good business decision for Sony BMG to release all of its music under a CC license, because they wouldn't make any money."
That is actually arguable. There are many artists who make a living selling art which is under a CC license ( I know someone that does sell creative commons art, though it is not his main source of income ), it is not inconcievable for Sony or BMG to do the same. It may not be compatible with the way that Sony and BMG currently think about and treat consumers. It may not even be a viable solution at all ( it has never been tried on such a large scale so we can't know ). But it is entirely possible that Sony and BMG could make more money with a buisness plan that included licencing all of their artist's works under a creative commons license than they make now, and it would almost certainly make consumers happier ( and be great PR for Sony / BMG ). - Netrilix, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1Anyone watch a bird who truly believes that on the 4th try, he's going to get through that glass?
- FredFredrickson, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1Did you miss the word "most" in my comment? For every decent wallpaper creator on DeviantART (which is a whole other topic of wasted creativity), there are thousands, if not millions of people who just finished their first glass text or candy icon tutorial who now think they are experts. I am an artist, a real artist, and this sickens me.
Don't get me wrong - it's great to be proud of yourself for something - even paint-by-numbers has a certain joy to it when it's finished... but the vast majority of people out there who consider themselves good at this stuff aren't, so there's not much need that I see to worry about licensing issues. - kettlechips, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1Only the non-commercial CC is incompatible. Buried as inaccurate.
- wilhel1812, on 10/10/2007, -6/+3sorry, please bury the two first of my replies.
- wilhel1812, on 10/10/2007, -6/+2first, not true
second, why is it bad to learn from tutorials? - wilhel1812, on 10/10/2007, -6/+2first, not true
second, why is it bad to learn from tutorials? - FredFredrickson, on 10/10/2007, -25/+3Most of the people who consider themselves wallpaper or icon designers are just internet tutorial-heads anyway... so who cares?
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is