You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

fubarobfusco comments on Licensing discussion for LessWrong Posts - Less Wrong Discussion

2 Post author: Rick_from_Castify 24 December 2012 10:00AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (71)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: fubarobfusco 25 December 2012 02:18:37AM *  6 points [-]

I'm not interested in anything I write being copied and redistributed in a way that does not permit the recipient to copy it further.

Also, y'all don't care for podcast purposes, but Cards Against Rationality is implicitly CC-BY-NC-SA since it inherits from Cards Against Humanity.

Comment author: Douglas_Knight 25 December 2012 03:54:37AM 2 points [-]

Not doing so explicitly is a violation of the license.

Comment author: David_Gerard 25 December 2012 07:59:58AM 3 points [-]

There's not really such a thing as an implicit CC by-nc-sa - these licences are not "viral" in that sense. Your post should be edited to add an explicit CC by-nc-sa notice, else it's technically just a copyright violation.

(In practical terms approximately nobody will care deeply, but if you're reusing someone's stuff under a CC licence it's good practice to do the small things that constitute doing it properly.)

Comment author: mindspillage 26 December 2012 03:28:12AM 3 points [-]

David is correct about the way the copyleft works, which almost no one ever is: your content never "becomes" copylefted just because you build upon a copylefted work; you must either explicitly license it under a compatible license, be using the original work in a way that doesn't require a license (fair use, de minimis, etc.), or you are infringing.

Just to go into slightly more technicalities: if CAR doesn't take copyrightable expression from CAH, you can license original work in the new game under a different license; the share-alike requirement doesn't get triggered if what you got from the original wasn't something that would have been protected under the original license.

What counts as taking copyrightable expression can be pretty fuzzy, though. I haven't compared the two games--just clarifying the requirement. And practically, it's advisable to use the BY-NC-SA license from CAH if you're at all unsure.