reflects my opinions and not necessarily the rest of the team, unless otherwise stated>>144
Got it. we have people making physical copies right now and it's fine, also if one of us gives permission to make physical copies then it isn't an issue. Plus like, making physical copies to have instead of sell (printing them out yourself) is always fair use.
Someone would need to contact us to make physical releases that look good anyway, since formatting for print is different from formatting for web.>>152
Thanks for your advice, I have 2 questions:
Why should we double-license?
If we don't put our work as NC, all else remaining the same, it would also be free as in freedom. If I recall, the whole point of free-libre works is that people aren't exploiting the community and give back what they take away from it. So my question is, why does explicit noncommercialization make something not free?>>157
In spite of the accusations from people like >>161
and appleman, I intend to stick to my word and keep things "nonpartisan" as it is commonly understood: not print explicit advertisement for either site. Actually, this wouldn't be different from what we do anyway because "no blasse advertisement" has been in our submission guidelines since I first wrote them (and will be in the guidelines rewrite too).
However, we're not going to categorically deny any piece because they link to applechan or here, just recognize the ephemeral quality of content on both and websites in general: your piece will be better if you use a link that will last, rather than say a thread that will be gone in a week or a url that will disapppear in a couple months.