flood the commons
In Creative Commons, Mason said:
For my book I have chosen CC BY-NC-SA. Which means derivative can be made but not for comercial purposes and they must have the same license attached to it. I chose this because I want people to be able to remix and modify my art - but also, it is my art, and I don't want people making money off my art without my permission.
Like Mason, I too want people to be able to remix and modify my art. Although, I can choose not to treat it as if it can only be my art. That aligns with how little these licenses matter when they can't be enforced on derivative work that isn't found. That also broadens the amount of spaces in which my art can infiltrate and thrive within.
I also want people making money off my art with or without my permission. Learning about them achieving that feat, whether they disclose their sources or not, can become a signal for possibility if not partnership. Even if I don't earn that, knowing that people out there benefit whether offering or purchasing stuff I worked on adds to the worth of my effort. Anyway, what right do I have upon others' mind or body to dictate how they can use either for expressed ideas that have countless fingerprints smudged on them as is?
Life is too precious for me to hide my stories behind restrictive licenses and terms. If anything, I believe I should be encouraging the unfettered spread of my work to who knows how many people's benefit. The more I can let my essence circulate freely throughout the world, the less of myself that has to disappear when I die one day.