Take a look at the Linux philosophy that extends it

I know, it is for content, CC came out of programming culture. Schwartz and Co.

🍿

It's more about "You should and will maintain this code as open source, or else"

I know, but it is the decision of the content creator under which conditions your content is allowed to be used.

And the people who often speak on behalf of the GNU foundation speak about how copyright and closed source code is bad and should be eliminated.

It's actually not

Any code that links to GNU / GPL / AGPL is forced open

regardless of open or closed code. any reference

Yes, because you user their work.

Even without code modification

Which is why i recommend LGPL

🤔

I know. I dont like these licenses too.

LGPL is considered a compromise in the GNU community, not a solution.

"You don't own the source code. Everybody does"

It is based on the thinking, we put work into this code, now corporations can use them without any need for giving back anything.

I use MIT for my source code, if I am allowed.

Yes, however that does not dismiss the fact that it is designed to give the rights of the code to everyone, not just the author.

That distribution of power is reminiscent to socialist views.

The problem is that you have to ask each programmer of Linux kernel for allowance to change the license.

Yeah, exactly.

The kernel is LGPL, iirc. Not sure. That or the GNU make C compiler

Otherwise Linux wouldn't be used by big infrastructure.

My personal view is that copy-right and copy-left should not be infectious outside of the bounds of the IP

copy-centrist

I tend to use either BSD, CC (non-code stuff), MIT, or LGPL

MIT is good for school projects

I think everyone should use a license for the damages disclaimer.

That part is the most important for claimed damages or liability.

Ooof

CC is also infectious, or am I wrong?

I think it works like LGPL where if the content is modified, it is under the license or the authority of the IP owner.

CC-BY at least, I think.

BY only tells you to attribute

Not to use the same license.

sorry, yes, I meant the one with non-commercial clausel.

I think that only covers the act of profiting without authorization by the IP owner.

``The "non-commercial" option included in some Creative Commons licenses is controversial in definition,[37] as it is sometimes unclear what can be considered a non-commercial setting, and application, since its restrictions differ from the principles of open content promoted by other permissive licenses.[38] In 2014 Wikimedia Deutschland published a guide to using Creative Commons licenses as wiki pages for translations and as PDF.[39]``

🤔

didn't help much