= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
MBlume comments on The Tragedy of the Anticommons - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (47)
See also Lawrence Lessig's Free Culture for more on tragedy of the anticommons effects in intellectual property
ETA: Speaking of which, does anyone know what the intellectual licensing situation is with sites like this? May I, for example, state categorically that all my submissions are licensed under creative commons-by-nc-sa?
See About Less Wrong:
Also,
One of these days the Creative Commons people will get around to writing a variant that takes into account the moderator's need to edit malformed/misspelled [X]HTML.
To answer your question: yes, you can license it cc-by-nc-sa, but it might conflict unhelpfully with the moderators' reserved rights. IANAL, but a cursory google shows the matter hasn't noticeably been tested in court. It might be possible that if a moderator modified your post to correct some spelling or markup, they'd be infringing upon the cc license.
A work can be released under more than one license. Releasing something to the general public under CC doesn't interfere with the (implicit, unnamed) license granted to Less Wrong.