• Ephera
    link
    fedilink
    1110 hours ago

    I think, it’s mainly a matter of the works to which Creative Commons is typically applied, being less suitable for collaboration. You might occasionally see remixes, but that’s mostly it.

    In the case of open-source, collaboration is what elevates it, and often makes it better than paid-for software.
    You rarely see Creative Commons works that outdo paid-for works in terms of objective quality. Heck, chances are that more collaboration happens in paid-for works, because they can hire an editor, a sound engineer etc…

    • @tal
      link
      English
      55 hours ago

      Wikipedia is under a Creative Commons license.

      • Ephera
        link
        fedilink
        64 hours ago

        Yeah, solid counterexample. Wikipedia and other Wikis have a clearly defined goal, i.e. collect factually correct information about a specific topic, which is also a goal shared by enough people to drive collaboration.

        Another cool example is the Mutopia Project, which basically archives sheet music. Contributors can just pick a piece of music and transcribe that, and they kind of don’t even have to talk to anyone for the project as a whole to benefit.

        But then there is lots of examples, like writing a new song, writing a new novel etc., where the goal is not clearly defined, where it’s difficult to collaborate, because what you contribute might not mesh well with what the others provide.