travelin cat
msg:4270708 | 7:51 pm on Feb 22, 2011 (gmt 0) |
Well, a good spell checker is a beginning.
|
The Nountaineer
msg:4270722 | 8:28 pm on Feb 22, 2011 (gmt 0) |
I do thank you for your constructive advice. I often write faster than my brain processes the spelling and post before it is ready. I will try to work on that issue.
|
mbabuskov
msg:4273343 | 2:39 pm on Feb 27, 2011 (gmt 0) |
Commercial use is really hard to track. Suppose someone takes your content and puts in on his website which is also for-free. He can even keep the license. Suppose his website is financed via advertisement (most sites are), he would still make money off your work.
On the web, content is king. If you plan to make money out of this, keep the copyright to yourself. If you're only doing it for fame and wish as many people to learn about you as soon as possible, then us CC.
|
The Nountaineer
msg:4273382 | 5:03 pm on Feb 27, 2011 (gmt 0) |
Thank you, this is the kind of advice that I needed. I did not understand all of the ins and outs of using the CC liciense. I will get rid of it.
|
graeme_p
msg:4329352 | 1:46 pm on Jun 22, 2011 (gmt 0) |
Creative Commons attribution, AFAIK, requires linking if the content is reused on the web, and appropriate attribution elsewhere. This is beneficial.
There are services that can track re-use on the web automatically, so unless your content is re-used heavily you can look through a list of links, find the commercial ones and deal with them.
AFAIK putting CC material on a page with advertising would be commercial usage and would violate the non-commercial versions of the license.
You have to track re-use anyway, regardless of license, so CC licensing does not necessarily create extra much extra work in tracking re-use, and may get you links or publicity.
If someone else makes a bit of money from your work in such a way that you also benefit, it can be a win-win.
|
|
