Post AvVGCAUbKLTwRFsPNg by passthejoe@ruby.social
 (DIR) More posts by passthejoe@ruby.social
 (DIR) Post #AvV8iNPO2gaq87HiYi by tante@tldr.nettime.org
       2025-06-25T21:25:18Z
       
       0 likes, 1 repeats
       
       Read through @creativecommons's "signals" proposal and that's ... really weak.Feels like it's just a bit of window dressing to keep to community busy while AI companies take everything they can find. Like, why is that kind of signalling not part of the licenses? The promise of CC licenses was reuse by others (that is _people_) not machines. My stuff is CC because I want other human beings to potentially use it but if I change the license, it is about excluding AI companies from it. I don't want to "signal" (meaning beg) I want to forbid (meaning adding it to the license).TBH: The whole AI shit and the way that OSI and CC have reacted to it have really shown just how poorly thought out a lot of that core infrastructure of the digital commons is.
       
 (DIR) Post #AvVGCAUbKLTwRFsPNg by passthejoe@ruby.social
       2025-06-25T21:27:55Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @tante @creativecommons I have been thinking/worried about this. We need licenses that acknowledge and deal with the changing landscape due to AI.
       
 (DIR) Post #AvVGCBcR8hLNvqYBEW by nobody@mastodon.acm.org
       2025-06-25T22:49:59Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @passthejoe(in a weak, sleepy voice) we need abolition of "licenses"; the "core infrastructure" is copyright, copyright is not meant to protect you from the corporate, it's meant to protect the corporate from you@tante @creativecommons