Commercial Novel Writing in Codeberg - Yea or Nay? #1811

anon3838 commented 2025年03月07日 06:30:44 +01:00

Comment

Hi,

I found a similar issue, but their question wasn't quite like mine:
#1103

I'm a very, very small self-published author who used a git-based workflow for my writing. I sell my books on Amazon etc.

Currently, I use private repos GitHub for storage, but I'd really rather not. My concerns are the same as the ones mentioned above, namely in that on general principle, I'd rather not have Microsoft use my work as a free LLM training dataset.

I wanted to know:

• Because I sell my books, would I be violating the TOS if I used Codeberg to host my work? I'd be storing them as markdown files in private repos.

Thanks!

### Comment Hi, I found a similar issue, but their question wasn't quite like mine: https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/Community/issues/1103 I'm a very, very small self-published author who used a git-based workflow for my writing. I sell my books on Amazon etc. Currently, I use private repos GitHub for storage, but I'd really rather not. My concerns are the same as the ones mentioned above, namely in that on general principle, I'd rather not have Microsoft use my work as a free LLM training dataset. I wanted to know: - Because I sell my books, would I be violating the TOS if I used Codeberg to host my work? I'd be storing them as markdown files in private repos. Thanks!

tusharhero commented 2025年03月17日 04:38:41 +01:00

Commercial or not, is not the primary question here, because you can
sell things under free licenses too. The question is what license will
you use? I have some drafts for blogs on codeberg, all of which I have
licensed under CC-BY-SA No Derivatives for example.

Commercial or not, is not the primary question here, because you can sell things under free licenses too. The question is what license will you use? I have some drafts for blogs on codeberg, all of which I have licensed under CC-BY-SA No Derivatives for example.

anon3838 commented 2025年03月17日 05:11:50 +01:00

Good question, and one I've never really thought about (like I said, I'm a small time hobbyist. I've probably made 50ドル in total).

In the past, I've always just written some generic language like "No part of this publication can be reproduced in any form or by any means electronic or mechanical, without expressed permission of the author."

Is this the license you use: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ ?

I'm very much amenable to something like that. I don't care if people distribute my work for free (I'm just happy to have someone read it), but I wouldn't want them to resell it.

Good question, and one I've never really thought about (like I said, I'm a small time hobbyist. I've probably made 50ドル in total). In the past, I've always just written some generic language like _"No part of this publication can be reproduced in any form or by any means electronic or mechanical, without expressed permission of the author."_ Is this the license you use: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ ? I'm very much amenable to something like that. I don't care if people distribute my work for free (I'm just happy to have someone read it), but I wouldn't want them to resell it.

tusharhero commented 2025年03月17日 05:14:52 +01:00

Is this the license you use:
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ ?

Yes

I'm very much amenable to something like that. I don't care if
people distribute my work for free (I'm just happy to have someone
read it), but I wouldn't want them to resell it.

There is a non-commercial license that permits redistribution but not
resale. As the copyright holder, you have also the option to license
it under two different types of licenses.

> Is this the license you use: > https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ ? Yes > I'm very much amenable to something like that. I don't care if > people distribute my work for free (I'm just happy to have someone > read it), but I wouldn't want them to resell it. There is a non-commercial license that permits redistribution but not resale. As the copyright holder, you have also the option to license it under two different types of licenses.

anon3838 commented 2025年03月17日 05:31:47 +01:00

Great! I'd likely use one of those. Thanks for your help with my question!

Great! I'd likely use one of those. Thanks for your help with my question!

n0toose commented 2025年03月17日 11:50:29 +01:00

Although we have not clarified the whole Creative Commons (for art, not code) question in our ToS yet (so, technically, we do not allow any Creative Commons licenses, although we do "tolerate them" in situations which are appropriate), I would personally heavily discourage using ND or NC licenses on Codeberg.

Equal commercial use for all: CC BY allows commercial use, but for everyone equally. And since non-commercial use is often interpreted very narrowly, so that even publishing an NC-licensed article on a website with advertising, for example, can be considered a violation of the NC licence terms, it is important to allow this.

Non-commercial license types exclude many desired usage possibilities without substantial benefits. They are not true open licenses.

https://bib.telegrafenberg.de/en/publishing/open-access/creative-commons-licenses

Although we have not clarified the whole Creative Commons (for art, not code) question in our ToS yet (so, technically, we do not allow *any* Creative Commons licenses, although we do "tolerate them" in situations which are appropriate), I would personally heavily discourage using ND or NC licenses on Codeberg. > Equal commercial use for all: CC BY allows commercial use, but for everyone equally. And since non-commercial use is often interpreted very narrowly, so that even publishing an NC-licensed article on a website with advertising, for example, can be considered a violation of the NC licence terms, it is important to allow this. >> Non-commercial license types exclude many desired usage possibilities without substantial benefits. They are not true open licenses. https://bib.telegrafenberg.de/en/publishing/open-access/creative-commons-licenses

tusharhero commented 2025年03月17日 13:27:33 +01:00

Although we have not clarified the whole Creative Commons (for art,
not code) question in our ToS yet (so, technically, we do not allow
any Creative Commons licenses, although we do "tolerate them" in
situations which are appropriate), I would personally heavily
discourage using ND or NC licenses on Codeberg.

ND makes sense for things that are supposed to represent a view point.
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#OpinionLicenses

> > Although we have not clarified the whole Creative Commons (for art, > not code) question in our ToS yet (so, technically, we do not allow > _any_ Creative Commons licenses, although we do "tolerate them" in > situations which are appropriate), I would personally heavily > discourage using ND or NC licenses on Codeberg. > ND makes sense for things that are supposed to represent a view point. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#OpinionLicenses

n0toose commented 2025年03月17日 14:53:13 +01:00

OK, fair enough, and it's also in the list.

OK, fair enough, and it's also in the list.

anon3838 commented 2025年03月18日 05:17:45 +01:00

Context: I want to to version my self-indulgent litfic that no one reads in codeberg.

Let's say I choose either:

CC BY-NC or CC BY-NC-SA

It seems like there's some precedent for doing this in regards to blog posts, so would it make sense to extend this to fiction writing?

Most of the other licenses on the GNU site are more applicable to software documentation / code.

Context: I want to to version my self-indulgent litfic that no one reads in codeberg. Let's say I choose either: CC BY-NC or CC BY-NC-SA It seems like there's some precedent for doing this in regards to blog posts, so would it make sense to extend this to fiction writing? Most of the other licenses on the GNU site are more applicable to software documentation / code.

tusharhero commented 2025年03月18日 05:21:53 +01:00

Let's say I choose either:

CC BY-NC or CC BY-NC-SA

It seems like there's some precedent for doing this in regards to blog posts, so would it make sense to extend this to fiction writing?

Just to be clear I use no derivatives license, not non commercial license.

> Let's say I choose either: > > CC BY-NC or CC BY-NC-SA > > It seems like there's some precedent for doing this in regards to blog posts, so would it make sense to extend this to fiction writing? > Just to be clear I use no derivatives license, not non commercial license.

boud commented 2025年03月24日 15:43:06 +01:00

Although the TOS starts with the words "open source", it refers specifically to the FSF and OSI lists of free licences, so it's clear that the intention is to satisfy both the Free Software Definition and the Open Source Definition.

Anything under a CC ND or NC clause is not free content. You're not permitted to copy/paste CC ND or CC NC content into Wikipedia. In principle, CC BY-SA content can legally be copy/pasted into Wikipedia (if it makes sense and is properly sourced and satisfies other Wikipedia guidelines and principles). Just because it's CC doesn't mean that it's free in the software/content licensing sense.

This is consistent with what @n0toose said. Clarifying CC licences specifically in the TOS would help, but while waiting for that, leaving aside the formal legal compatibilities between broadly similar software and CC licences, CC BY-SA is at least similar in spirit to copyleft licences like the GPL, while CC BY is similar in spirit to permissive licences like Expat/MIT 3-clause, and CC0 is very similar to PD. The actual details of formal compatibilities are more complicated.

Although the [TOS](https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/org/src/branch/main/TermsOfUse.md) starts with the words "open source", it refers specifically to the FSF and OSI lists of free licences, so it's clear that the intention is to satisfy both the Free Software Definition and the Open Source Definition. Anything under a CC ND or NC clause is _not free content_. You're _not_ permitted to copy/paste CC ND or CC NC content into Wikipedia. In principle, CC BY-SA content _can_ legally be copy/pasted into Wikipedia (if it makes sense and is properly sourced and satisfies other Wikipedia guidelines and principles). Just because it's CC doesn't mean that it's free in the software/content licensing sense. This is consistent with what @n0toose said. Clarifying CC licences specifically in the TOS would help, but while waiting for that, leaving aside the formal legal compatibilities between broadly similar software and CC licences, CC BY-SA is at least similar in spirit to copyleft licences like the GPL, while CC BY is similar in spirit to permissive licences like Expat/MIT 3-clause, and CC0 is very similar to PD. The actual details of formal compatibilities are more complicated.

tusharhero commented 2025年03月24日 16:34:06 +01:00

@boud wrote in #1811 (comment):

Although the TOS starts with the words "open source", it refers
specifically to the FSF and OSI lists of free licences, so it's
clear that the intention is to satisfy both the Free Software
Definition and the Open Source Definition.

Anything under a CC ND or NC clause is not free content. You're
not permitted to copy/paste CC ND or CC NC content into Wikipedia.

Why should every free content be allowed to be copy pasted into
Wikipedia? If I understand correctly no-derivatives doesn't mean no
redistribution, you are just not allowed to modify the content, which
is reasonable for content that represents a view point. Wikipedia
may have policies to only allow CC-BY-SA, but you can very much
copy-paste CC-BY-ND content anywhere you want.

However, if this is a problem I am okay with re-licensing my blog's
content under CC-BY-SA.

@boud wrote in https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/Community/issues/1811#issuecomment-3108393: > > Although the [TOS](https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/org/src/branch/main/TermsOfUse.md) starts with the words "open source", it refers > specifically to the FSF and OSI lists of free licences, so it's > clear that the intention is to satisfy both the Free Software > Definition and the Open Source Definition. > > Anything under a CC ND or NC clause is _not free content_. You're > _not_ permitted to copy/paste CC ND or CC NC content into Wikipedia. > Why should every free content be allowed to be copy pasted into Wikipedia? If I understand correctly no-derivatives doesn't mean no redistribution, you are just not allowed to modify the content, which is reasonable for content that [represents a view point](https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#OpinionLicenses). Wikipedia may have policies to only allow CC-BY-SA, but you can very much copy-paste CC-BY-ND content anywhere you want. However, if this is a problem I am okay with re-licensing my blog's content under CC-BY-SA.

boud commented 2025年03月24日 17:28:46 +01:00

@tusharhero wrote in #1811 (comment):

Why should every free content be allowed to be copy pasted into Wikipedia?

I meant here in terms of copyright - the parenthesis "(if it makes sense ...)" - was meant to clarify that in general, copy/pasting directly into Wikipedia won't make sense, though in some cases it may. Scientific research papers under open licences typically use CC BY - so copy/pasting one or two key sentences from the abstract of a peer-reviewed research paper published under CC BY will in some cases be acceptable in Wikipedia in terms of policies and guidelines other than copyright.

If I understand correctly no-derivatives doesn't mean no redistribution, you are just not allowed to modify the content, which is reasonable for content that represents a view point. Wikipedia may have policies to only allow CC-BY-SA, but you can very much copy-paste CC-BY-ND content anywhere you want.

CC BY-ND allows you to copy from the source without modification, but it's the Wikipedia use of CC BY-SA that prevents the paste. Wikipedia requires the content to be modifiable.

However, if this is a problem I am okay with re-licensing my blog's content under CC-BY-SA.

My understanding is that CC BY-SA would be compatible with the spirit of the current Codeberg TOS. I'm not following discussions about whether the Codeberg community or organisation are thinking of allowing CC BY-ND. I do know that historically, both Wikipedia and Debian had big complications to handle because of the GFDL (fine in principle, difficult in practice).

@tusharhero wrote in https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/Community/issues/1811#issuecomment-3108571: > Why should every free content be allowed to be copy pasted into Wikipedia? I meant here in terms of copyright - the parenthesis "(if it makes sense ...)" - was meant to clarify that in general, copy/pasting directly into Wikipedia won't make sense, though in some cases it may. Scientific research papers under open licences typically use CC BY - so copy/pasting one or two key sentences from the abstract of a peer-reviewed research paper published under CC BY will in some cases be acceptable in Wikipedia in terms of policies and guidelines other than copyright. > If I understand correctly no-derivatives doesn't mean no redistribution, you are just not allowed to modify the content, which is reasonable for content that [represents a view point](https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#OpinionLicenses). Wikipedia may have policies to only allow CC-BY-SA, but you can very much copy-paste CC-BY-ND content anywhere you want. CC BY-ND allows you to _copy_ from the source without modification, but it's the Wikipedia use of CC BY-SA that prevents the _paste_. Wikipedia requires the content to be modifiable. > However, if this is a problem I am okay with re-licensing my blog's content under CC-BY-SA. My understanding is that CC BY-SA would be compatible with the spirit of the current Codeberg TOS. I'm not following discussions about whether the Codeberg community or organisation are thinking of allowing CC BY-ND. I do know that historically, both Wikipedia and Debian had big complications to handle because of the GFDL (fine in principle, difficult in practice).

tusharhero commented 2025年03月24日 19:21:47 +01:00

Why should every free content be allowed to be copy pasted into
Wikipedia?

I meant here in terms of copyright - the parenthesis "(if it makes
sense ...)" - was meant to clarify that in general, copy/pasting
directly into Wikipedia won't make sense, though in some cases it
may. Scientific research papers under open licences typically use CC
BY - so copy/pasting one or two key sentences from the abstract of a
peer-reviewed research paper published under CC BY will in some cases
be acceptable in Wikipedia in terms of policies and guidelines other
than copyright.

What I don't understand is the relevance of Wikipedia (which is a
encyclopaedia) here.

If I understand correctly no-derivatives doesn't mean no
redistribution, you are just not allowed to modify the content, which
is reasonable for content that represents a view
point. Wikipedia may have policies to only allow CC-BY-SA, but
you can very much copy-paste CC-BY-ND content anywhere you want.

CC BY-ND allows you to copy from the source without modification,
but it's the Wikipedia use of CC BY-SA that prevents the
paste. Wikipedia requires the content to be modifiable.

However, if this is a problem I am okay with re-licensing my blog's
content under CC-BY-SA.

My understanding is that CC BY-SA would be compatible with the spirit
of the current Codeberg TOS. I'm not following discussions about
whether the Codeberg community or organisation are thinking of
allowing CC BY-ND. I do know that historically, both Wikipedia and
Debian had big complications to handle because of the GFDL (fine in
principle, difficult in practice).

CC-BY-ND is on the FSF's free licenses list, but only for writing
that is supposed to represent a view point. Wikipedia doesn't allow
this because it is not representing a viewpoint, I would imagine
Debian had similar considerations.

>> Why should every free content be allowed to be copy pasted into >Wikipedia? > >I meant here in terms of copyright - the parenthesis "(if it makes >sense ...)" - was meant to clarify that in general, copy/pasting >directly into Wikipedia won't make sense, though in some cases it >may. Scientific research papers under open licences typically use CC >BY - so copy/pasting one or two key sentences from the abstract of a >peer-reviewed research paper published under CC BY will in some cases >be acceptable in Wikipedia in terms of policies and guidelines other >than copyright. > What I don't understand is the relevance of Wikipedia (which is a encyclopaedia) here. >> If I understand correctly no-derivatives doesn't mean no >redistribution, you are just not allowed to modify the content, which >is reasonable for content that [represents a view >point](https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#OpinionLicenses). Wikipedia may have policies to only allow CC-BY-SA, but >you can very much copy-paste CC-BY-ND content anywhere you want. > >CC BY-ND allows you to _copy_ from the source without modification, >but it's the Wikipedia use of CC BY-SA that prevents the >_paste_. Wikipedia requires the content to be modifiable. > >> However, if this is a problem I am okay with re-licensing my blog's >content under CC-BY-SA. > >My understanding is that CC BY-SA would be compatible with the spirit >of the current Codeberg TOS. I'm not following discussions about >whether the Codeberg community or organisation are thinking of >allowing CC BY-ND. I do know that historically, both Wikipedia and >Debian had big complications to handle because of the GFDL (fine in >principle, difficult in practice). CC-BY-ND *is* on the FSF's free licenses list, but only for writing that is supposed to represent a view point. Wikipedia doesn't allow this because it is not representing a viewpoint, I would imagine Debian had similar considerations.

boud commented 2025年03月25日 11:44:05 +01:00

@tusharhero wrote in #1811 (comment):

What I don't understand is the relevance of Wikipedia (which is a
encyclopaedia) here.

Because Wikipedia, or rather the Wikimedia Media Foundation wikis overall, have been handling the question of copyright on a huge scale for two decades.

CC-BY-ND is on the FSF's free licenses list, but only for writing
that is supposed to represent a view point.

You're right. This is an ambiguity bug in Codeberg TOS - "open source ... approved by FSF" is difficult to interpret given that FSF opposes the term "open source". Whether works approved by the FSF for viewpoints - including CC BY-ND - constitute "open source" requires guesswork by the reader.

The wording needs clarification, from

an open-source license approved by the Free Software Foundation (see list of the FSF) or the Open Source Initiative (see list of the OSI).

to either

a free-software license approved by the Free Software Foundation (see list of the FSF) or an open-source license approved by the Open Source Initiative (see list of the OSI).

or

a free-software or free-documentation license approved by the Free Software Foundation (see list of the FSF) or an open-source license approved by the Open Source Initiative (see list of the OSI).

or

a free-software, free-documentation or viewpoint license approved by the Free Software Foundation (see list of the FSF) or an open-source license approved by the Open Source Initiative (see list of the OSI).

or something else that removes the ambiguity.

@tusharhero wrote in https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/Community/issues/1811#issuecomment-3109033: > What I don't understand is the relevance of Wikipedia (which is a > encyclopaedia) here. Because Wikipedia, or rather the Wikimedia Media Foundation wikis overall, have been handling the question of copyright on a huge scale for two decades. > CC-BY-ND _is_ on the FSF's free licenses list, but only for writing > that is supposed to represent a view point. You're right. This is an ambiguity bug in Codeberg TOS - "open source ... approved by FSF" is difficult to interpret given that FSF opposes the term "open source". Whether works approved by the FSF for viewpoints - including CC BY-ND - constitute "open source" requires guesswork by the reader. The wording needs clarification, from ```` an open-source license approved by the Free Software Foundation (see list of the FSF) or the Open Source Initiative (see list of the OSI). ```` to either ```` a free-software license approved by the Free Software Foundation (see list of the FSF) or an open-source license approved by the Open Source Initiative (see list of the OSI). ```` or ```` a free-software or free-documentation license approved by the Free Software Foundation (see list of the FSF) or an open-source license approved by the Open Source Initiative (see list of the OSI). ```` or ```` a free-software, free-documentation or viewpoint license approved by the Free Software Foundation (see list of the FSF) or an open-source license approved by the Open Source Initiative (see list of the OSI). ```` or something else that removes the ambiguity.

tusharhero commented 2025年03月25日 12:28:26 +01:00

@boud wrote in #1811 (comment):

@tusharhero wrote in #1811 (comment):

What I don't understand is the relevance of Wikipedia (which is a
encyclopaedia) here.

Because Wikipedia, or rather the Wikimedia Media Foundation wikis
overall, have been handling the question of copyright on a huge
scale for two decades.

Yes, but one also has to consider the different circumstances of their
decision and ours.

CC-BY-ND is on the FSF's free licenses list, but only for
writing > that is supposed to represent a view point.

You're right. This is an ambiguity bug in Codeberg TOS - "open
source ... approved by FSF" is difficult to interpret given that FSF
opposes the term "open source". Whether works approved by the FSF
for viewpoints - including CC BY-ND - constitute "open source"
requires guesswork by the reader.

The wording needs clarification, from

[ ... ]

or something else that removes the ambiguity.

I agree.

@boud wrote in https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/Community/issues/1811#issuecomment-3111175: > @tusharhero wrote in #1811 (comment): > > > What I don't understand is the relevance of Wikipedia (which is a > > encyclopaedia) here. > > Because Wikipedia, or rather the Wikimedia Media Foundation wikis > overall, have been handling the question of copyright on a huge > scale for two decades. > > Yes, but one also has to consider the different circumstances of their decision and ours. > > CC-BY-ND _is_ on the FSF's free licenses list, but only for > writing > that is supposed to represent a view point. > > You're right. This is an ambiguity bug in Codeberg TOS - "open > source ... approved by FSF" is difficult to interpret given that FSF > opposes the term "open source". Whether works approved by the FSF > for viewpoints - including CC BY-ND - constitute "open source" > requires guesswork by the reader. > > The wording needs clarification, from > > [ ... ] > > or something else that removes the ambiguity. I agree.

gedankenstuecke commented 2025年03月29日 17:24:08 +01:00

@moderation another spammer to be banned 😬

@moderation another spammer to be banned 😬

ashimokawa commented 2025年04月02日 10:10:46 +02:00

@gedankenstuecke

When I read your comment about a spammer a few hours after you posted it I did not see a spammer, would be better if you link the comment, so that if it is gone I do not search all comments for possible spam ;)
Or @moderation could also delete your comment after removing the spammer. Else is gets confusion.

@gedankenstuecke When I read your comment about a spammer a few hours after you posted it I did not see a spammer, would be better if you link the comment, so that if it is gone I do not search all comments for possible spam ;) Or @moderation could also delete your comment after removing the spammer. Else is gets confusion.

gedankenstuecke commented 2025年04月02日 15:34:04 +02:00

Good point, will do that going forward, thanks @ashimokawa!

Good point, will do that going forward, thanks @ashimokawa!