35
Public personal dev accounts: opinions?
(programming.dev)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 14 May 2024
35 points (90.7% liked)
Programming
17314 readers
39 users here now
Welcome to the main community in programming.dev! Feel free to post anything relating to programming here!
Cross posting is strongly encouraged in the instance. If you feel your post or another person's post makes sense in another community cross post into it.
Hope you enjoy the instance!
Rules
Rules
- Follow the programming.dev instance rules
- Keep content related to programming in some way
- If you're posting long videos try to add in some form of tldr for those who don't want to watch videos
Wormhole
Follow the wormhole through a path of communities !webdev@programming.dev
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Please do not make personal attacks,
My bad.
I'm not trying to make a case for the licence. I'm just adding it to my comments yet people keep feeling it necessary to harass me about it. The list of people I've blocked for mocking me about it has become quite long. Should I start reporting them?
Anti Commercial-AI license
Why are you adding it? It's not valid. You don't own the content you post online anymore. They're copies of your original content, to which you've already granted whatever license the website uses. You can't re-license those particular copies, it's out of your hands.
The poster licensing to the platform is not the same as licensing to the public.
This instance
programming.devToS declares:Distribution and displaying with attribution follows CC BY and SA. NC currently probably does - but may or may not (currently accepts donations).
The ToS only defines the license to distribute and display. It does not define how users and consumers of that distribution may or may not use the content.
So from this instance alone, there could be an argument of "the comment defines how it may be used".
But I'm not sure that holds given that federated distribution goes to other instances with different terms. For those that don't define how content may be consumed, it may be a reasonable argument. For those that define it in a conflicting manner, the ToS may override the content CC claim. Given the federated, distributed nature, given that you can reasonably expect such a conflict, there's a question of whether it holds in the first place if you can expect conflict invalidating it.
Either way, it's a convoluted mess, and incredibly noisy. Lemmy content has a language attribute. If there's a need for a license, it should be a metadata attribute in the same manner.
No, there can't. If the ToS doesn't give you any permissions it means you have none.
When you post something you give the site a copy of content, under the license in the ToS. From that moment onward you lose all rights to that copy and cannot re-license or do anything with it anymore, period. It's not your piece of content anymore, it's the site's.
Your original piece of content is still yours and you hold copyright. That's the piece that you were holding on your device, in your RAM or on your disk, before you posted it. If you held onto a copy of it you have full rights to it. If you lost it after you posted it, too bad.
The site cannot re-license their copy under different terms because it doesn't hold copyright, it only holds a license (albeit under very wide terms).
Other users are not included in the license. They can't do anything with the content except what's allowed under personal use.