pfft.to address mictoboy & mofaha's comments above and below, though:
i suppose the comparison i have is to free software. whereas my silly pictures aren't comparable in terms of usefulness to, say an operating system or a web server, the producers of these things have released them under licences which allow anyone, even organisations they are completely opposed to, to use them, without the need to ask permission. i admire the spirit of that kind of thing.
(and that's why the work i can legitimately release under creative commons doesn't have the 'non-commercial use' restriction)
(i suppose the comparison i have is to free software. whereas my silly pictures aren't comparable in terms of usefulness to, say an operating system or a web server, the producers of these things have released them under licences which allow anyone, even organisations they are completely opposed to, to use them, without the need to ask permission. i admire the spirit of that kind of thing.
(and that's why the work i can legitimately release under creative commons doesn't have the 'non-commercial use' restriction)
plentyofants more ghee, vicar?,
Thu 26 Jul 2007, 16:31,
archived)
no, fair do'sreally,
i don't have an issue either way, if you think that letting them publish your pic is ok, do it. at least they've started asking (sort of)
all i know is, i wouldn't
(i don't have an issue either way, if you think that letting them publish your pic is ok, do it. at least they've started asking (sort of)
all i know is, i wouldn't
mictoboy shitting in your cunt since,
Thu 26 Jul 2007, 16:35,
archived)
That's fair enough.I have some strong opinions about this but I'm happy to accept that they're just that - opinions.
Obviously this is a personal choice issue, and I definitely respect your right to make that choice.
(Obviously this is a personal choice issue, and I definitely respect your right to make that choice.
mofaha ┐( ˘_˘)┌ ʅ(́◡◝)ʃ,
Thu 26 Jul 2007, 16:47,
archived)