I think including an ND variant is important for works which are polemic rather than purely informational. For example, if some person or group writes a political manifesto, they may want it distributed as widely as possible, and thus allow redistribution and commercial use. They will probably also want their name associated with that manifesto. What they do not want is someone else to take that manifesto, change the text slightly so that it advocates distasteful or diametrically opposed ideas, and then redistribute the modified version while preserving the original authors' names in the credits. This makes it seem as though the original authors are promoting the ideas contained in the modified manifesto, particularly if the modifier has (deliberately or otherwise) credited them conspicuously. The modifier need not even have bad intentions in doing so; perhaps his intent was not to embarrass the original authors but simply to reuse what he thought was very good prose and very good arguments.
Of course, this is a potential problem even with non-polemic texts; I could find some CC-licensed software manual or Wikipedia article written by some famous figure, incorporate parts of it into a distasteful manifesto, and then release it with the innocent authors' names attached to it. But I think such scenarios are less likely to occur simply because it's more difficult to attach opinions and calls to action to a purely informational text than to one which is already polemic.
Posted Aug 28, 2012 8:18 UTC (Tue) by thumperward (guest, #34368)
[Link]
That's precisely the reasoning behind the various non-free provisions in the GFDL, which were designed to ensure that the FSF's message was fully and accurately conveyed in its distributed publications.
In practice this hasn't been necessary. It is *possible* that a malicious actor can take a program distributed under the GPL, for instance, insert blatant bugs and misfeatures, and attempt to pass it off as the original author's work. Maybe if we still lived in a world where software and books were distributed exclusively by couriers lugging large brown parcels around that might be more effective, but in practice it doesn't happen. There is little evidence to suggest that the GFDL's non-free provisions have prevented a real problem.
As as the original piece says, if you can't build on a work then it isn't part of the commons anyway. So why is it a CC licence at all? As it isn't part of the commons, the author need not care for interoperability in the slightest, so it's a waste of time to have a standard licence.
ND is important for polemic works
Posted Aug 28, 2012 9:05 UTC (Tue) by Otus (guest, #67685)
[Link]
All the CC licenses are supposed to deal with that problem:
"Attribution - You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the
author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you
or your use of the work)."
ND is important for polemic works
Posted Aug 28, 2012 14:21 UTC (Tue) by dkg (subscriber, #55359)
[Link]
Please see my comment above about ND and opinion pieces -- what you're describing is either fraud or libel or both; the ND clause in the license isn't necessary to protect against fraud or libel. And the ND clause actively discourages collaborative work by your political allies. This seems like a net loss to me for anyone with serious political commitment to the subject of their work.