Making patterns and then saying "you can use it on a commercial website!" but then saying "you can't include it in a texture collection that you sell" starts to get very murky.
That's why we have Creative Commons...because if everyone writes their own licenses it causes problems in the interpretation of the will and intent of the creator.
What if I make a commercial paint program, and I want some default textures, and I include these patterns and sell the program? I could argue I'm not charging for the textures, I'm charging for the program. You start getting on this slippery slope. I think being required to provide attribution and share-alike is enough leverage against truly shady operations.
If you really are anti-commercial purposes, you should just use the NC noncommercial clause.
@Yisela Yes, all the licenses have a "human readable" form, so here's CC-BY-NC...but the point is they've hacked on it as enforceable legal code, so then there's legal code for CC-BY-NC
I did some research on CC (well, copyleft, to be precise) some time ago, but it wasn't that much centered on CC, it was a particular project that tried to connect a city with home-made antennas
Which doesn't necessarily go into super big detail of what that is, but the thing is that you inherit the precedent of however that winds up being interpreted, and if you feel there's an egregious violation of license then you have some shot at having others do your legal legwork for you
That will not happen if you write your own license
They were mad because people were copying and pasting their articles and sending them around, and not only did they feel their license terms were being violated, but as they are in the business of stopping the spread of incorrect information they wanted people to be sending links instead so that they could update things to be up-to-the-minute correct
"And... so you break people's browser as an answer to this? You presumably copy and paste content from urban legend posts to get your material in the first place...what if your web/text editor disabled that? How is it that you're stopping me from copying text out of the urban legend YOU COPIED AND PASTED INTO YOUR ARTICLE AND DID NOT WRITE!?"
So I went off and tinkered to try and find a way to hierarchically establish content licenses on documents, detect when you are selecting a "significant portion of material", watermark the material if that threshold is reached, punch out holes in the watermarks for things that are quoted and under a different license, etc.
And you get a little warning icon with a light indicator... red for all rights reserved, green for public domain dedication, yellow for creative commons
Stuck to the end of the selection
You click it and it offers you a pop up with some advice about sending the link vs copying the text, telling you the license etc
Well, our email thread ended off in 2011 when I started writing it and was going to send them a demo to tell them "Now THIS might be reasonable..."
But it turned out to be... hard.
Well, harder than I thought
I've been just going through and trying to upload all my stuff to "the cloud" somewhere in a personal projects archiving operation...deciding what I'll finish in this lifetime and what I won't, etc. etc.
So I came back to it last week and said "all right, let me decide what to do with this"
And I have pretty much fixed it so it works.
However, I found out that petitioners at change.org managed to get snopes to do a turnabout, which took effect in February of this year
So my poster child for "naughty site that should know better" is gone
Kind of takes the wind out of the sails a bit, as I don't really like the idea all that much. It's cluttery. Then again, I sort of like the techno-dystopian world it presents where legalese is drowning out just being able to work effectively.
Well, I also like getting open source versions of things out as prior art in case someone tries to "invent it" and then be a jerk about it.
> By 1996, it became clear to everyone in the halls of power that there was something important about to happen. We were about to have an information economy, whatever the hell that was. They assumed it meant an economy where we bought and sold information. Now, information technology makes things efficient, so imagine the markets that an information economy would have.
> You could buy a book for a day, you could sell the right to watch the movie for one Euro, and then you could rent out the pause button at one penny per second. You could sell movies for one price in one country, and another price in another, and so on, and so on
> the fantasies of those days were a little like a boring science fiction adaptation of the Old Testament book of Numbers, a kind of tedious enumeration of every permutation of things people do with information and the ways we could charge them for it.
there's always a reason to fall into "If I do the ethical thing, why torture myself about those who don't". Sort of like "the new generation will fix it"
@Yisela Dystopian picture of what it might look like in a world where ISPs can turn back the clock and turn Internet usage into a tiered system, similar to cable, regarding what sites you can access.
Somewhere I have an unfinished essay challenging the assertion that a vector drawing "does not lose detail when it is scaled". It really depends on what you call a "detail". Because any non-linear property of a graphic relationship is lost in vector scaling. It ties into why you can't double t...
In part because I wondered how one might give such feedback, in contrast to what I think have been bad examples of feedback.
Not because I would have thought to give such a response to that question otherwise. It's the "what if I felt so passionately that the person needed to be informed"
In fact I kicked off the "make the wikipedia logo an actual 3-D thing" effort, trying to figure out what would be on the back of the globe and making it something you could actually build as an object
Didn't myself finish it, but the work was picked up a few years later when other people decided that would be a worthwhile thing.
Haven't done much on Wikipedia last couple years though. :-/
My main thing is three-paragraph introductions, and making sure paragraphs are paragraphs... vs just "hm, seems there have been a lot of sentences, getting a bit long. must be time for a line break."
@Yisela I don't think it hurts to have it there. If it is ever borrowed from to write a greater manifesto or book one can link to it. But I was trying to paint some strokes about what the "big questions" are while also keeping it relevant to points about that design.
The point Ivan wanted to make is "you don't know what you don't know", which is... well... that's the nature of existence up until you at least get to the point of knowing what you don't know...
Just decision making, adjustment, not having to be responsible for really creating entirely out of your own head... people live in a visual world and can learn to adjust and frame up a photo in basic ways and get better very quickly
I never fully 'understood' photography, not sure if it's the framing that just looks different in my mind, or that I lack the "eye" to find what I want to capture..
There wasn't really a lot of thought in it honestly, took about 2 hours
I was actually doing it to demo to someone that making graphics wasn't that hard
I may be a bit too structured to think this way now, who knows
"Hey it's a rabbit clipart. Hey, turn it upside down. Hey..." Actually, the original rabbit wasn't smooth like that, and I in my statistical figure-ground-calculation thing try to make the black and white areas equal, that sort of thing
No trailer. I guess it's more obscure than I thought
> They remembered the time he dropped footlong hot dogs from a helicopter over Ward's Island and the time an admirer sought to buy one of his collages. The prospective buyer said he had $1,000 to spend. Johnson asked $2,000. The prospective buyer offered $1,500. He got the collage. But Johnson had cut away a quarter of it.
The central project I'm interested in, regarding that, is stopping the Ivans of the world. And a lot of that has to do with setting precedent and tone.
> In many ways, the work of a critic is easy. We risk very little, yet enjoy a position over those who offer up their work and their selves to our judgment. We thrive on negative criticism, which is fun to write and to read.
> But the bitter truth we critics must face, is that in the grand scheme of things, the average piece of junk is probably more meaningful than our criticism designating it so.
> But there are times when a critic truly risks something, and that is in the discovery and defense of the new. The world is often unkind to new talent, new creations. The new needs friends.
" the average piece of junk is probably more meaningful than our criticism designating it so." this phrasing confuses me a little. We are designating less meaning than it originally had?
The criticism itself probably has less originality or worth than may be present in whatever germ of an idea might be in the work being criticized, or at least the effort.
Ivan doesn't know what the story of this business is, or this guy's wife, or what it took for her to cut off the hand with the basketball and put another one in its place.
Or if she is a really moral person who had to venture into the dark world of piracy to get a copy of creative suite she doesn't know how to use...
Or... who knows, there's probably a lot more interest in that story (assuming it's not a juxtaposition created by an algorithm, but that's always something I have to consider, given my actual field)... than there is about some anonymous critic who I would bet I could wipe out in many areas. Not the least of which graphic design.
Well, heed my warning. This element isn't just out there, there are a lot of people with a pack mentality who can be sure they all agree that people who are so bad shouldn't even be trying.
For the moment, I imagine most anyone coming to a SE site has some programming/community/background that is not cut from that cloth
There is a distinct decline in the level of civility here. Some of this is due to new users coming in and posting spam and other nonsense, but the offtopic and downvote buttons are doing a pretty good job of keeping this under control.
Unfortunately, a lot of this is coming from more experien...
Although her aesthetics can be seen as an outgrowth of street art, her engagement with ethical living and making art share a close kinship with the idealism of off-grid, barter-based cultures and economies based on sharing.
As you probably know, GD.SE is part of the Stack Exchange network. SE's model is based on four 'cardinal' rules. The first two ones: Be honest, be nice. (they are not mutually exclusive ;) ).
This post is not directed at any specific user, nor is it in response to any specific incident. The sub...
I think this case is rather specific, but I wonder if a whole new meta post in the same tone would be constructive... maybe editing some more info in, in the existing one
it really depends, normally I have GD open while working, so that time is quite distributed. The last couple of days were of the most active (in history!) and I spent perhaps... 3 hours. But I was editing, changing titles, answering
I think it really depends what kind of things you do, the maintenance stuff is quite straightforward, not different from being a normal user with editing / reviewing privileges
uh yeah, that's one of the things that strikes me about this community is that there's lots of 'sub-mod's. Peeps who jump in to fulfill mod roles beyond you two.
Somewhere I have an unfinished essay challenging the assertion that a vector drawing "does not lose detail when it is scaled". It really depends on what you call a "detail". Because any non-linear property of a graphic relationship is lost in vector scaling. It ties into why you can't double t...
