42low wrote:Thanks wolftune for this great reaction.
To me it is no fear, but just pragmatic practical oppinion.
And i am free in mind. I do share. I live by being nice to and good for people. But i expect it back.
Though reality is that not all (most) can live with that and abuse the situation. Fine to me if they live like that, but i am not going to be abused (as i don't abuse either). I give when i give at who i want to give, not otherwise.
Okay, it's a different attitude than fear. It's still irrational and speculative. To release art into the world where not *everyone* is sharing as freely as you is definitely *not* being abused, there's no fair way to describe it as such. If your art isn't something you wish to share widely at all (you only share it privately with select people), that's fine, that's a different matter. If you want to require that anyone who uses your art share their derivatives under the same terms, just use copyleft licensing.
Let me clarify the point of my post above: Of the various reasons to share or not share and to include or not include sources, here's a reason that is invalid: "Others will steal my ideas". Basically all notable creative work of all sorts, even quite personal, is built on preexisting ideas. Remixers will remix. You can exclude your work from being remixed because you don't want that to happen, and we can argue about the merits. But in most cases, when you share your work and sources for others to remix, nobody will. In the cases where they do, it will almost always be a good thing, and with copyleft licenses, they will be required to share the same way. So, if you don't want to share (or prefer to share selectively) for other reasons, we'd discuss those other reasons.
When I said "fear" originally, I mean this idea that bad things will happen because you shared your work freely. That is the idea which I was referring to holding myself at some point in the past and having learned to drop (because it's a mostly irrational and counterproductive idea).