Asklemmy

43745 readers

2041 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
[email protected]: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

If society collapsed what is your best case scenario for what comes after? (lemmy.dbzer0.com)

submitted 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

42 comments fedilink hide all child comments

You can come up with the details on the kind of collapse.

~Anti~ ~Commercial-AI~ ~license~ ~(CC~ ~BY-NC-SA~ ~4.0)~

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Calling a license by anything other than its name and stated purpose is something I’d dare to call mislabeling.

Fair point. The explanation itself has to be detached from the license to make it clear. So for example, if I state that my comment here is CC BY-NC-SA 4.0, it only states the license, WHY I licensed it as such is the explanation and not the label for the license. So yeah, without context (the why), it is mislabeling.

While you are correct that lemmy itself does not add a license and many instances do not add a license, it’s not as simple as “the user notifies [you] must abides by [their] licenses.” Jurisdiction matters. The Fediverse host content is pulled from matters. Other myriad factors matter.

But that is true for all content on the internet no? The difference is this time we are talking about a user-generated content without explicit license, now has an explicit license.

As you correctly pointed out, there is no precedence for any of this so as I pointed out unless you’re willing to go to court and can prove damages it is actually useless.

I wouldn't call it useless tho. After all, we will only push the legal framework because people are doing something wack.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago

That’s fair. I don’t disagree with licensing comments necessarily. I think users doing it to provide the basis for a legal argument is fine. I think my pushback comes from my lack of trust in any of these users actually acting on their license which could be construed as victim-shaming. I’m hung up on the follow-through which careful analysis like yours really highlights.