As I’m interacting from a non-Lemmy (Catodon) instance, I’ll interpret the question as a broader “What made you join the Fediverse?”.

In a nutshell, the open-source nature, the possibility of having choices (I can choose between instances and platforms), decentralization, distance from capitalist interests and from enshittification, the shared resonance to some of my principles, among other reasons.

I used to have a Lemmy account (The Lemmy Club) but I’m fond of a platform where I can have both a personal microblogging feed alongside the interactions with the communities on the threadiverse (Lemmy, Piefed, mbin, etc), and Misskey/Sharkey/Catodon is this platform. I also have accounts on other platforms, namely Mastodon, PixelFed, Friendica and tootik (Fediverse platform for geminispace/geminiprotocol, which has nothing to do with Google despite the name), but Catodon is the platform I’ve been using the most.

Also, I didn’t come from Reddit, I didn’t even use to use Reddit despite having had an account there many years ago. I don’t even how who exactly is this “spez” y’all talk about. I mostly used from Orkut (back when it existed in 2010s) all the way to TikTok (up to a few years ago) before I ditched it all and pivoted to decentralized platforms. Nowadays, the only mainstream social platform I still have (against my own values, I eager to ditch it) is the damn WhatsApp because Brazilians around me use it as their must-have instant messaging, otherwise I’d have exclusively decentralized platforms.

[email protected]

You probably should have prefaced your post with explanation of who is “Her”

“Her” is Dark Mother Goddess, Lilith among many names I believe She manifests as. I follow no specific religion but a solitary, independent syncretism whose concepts stem from several Left-Hand Paths. It’s mostly stemmed from gnosis, so I got no known source to point at that could define my current beliefs, but many concepts share the same original definitions: “gnosis” and “channeling” being “learning and/or being inspired by spiritual entities, often during altered states of consciousness”, and Lilith/Lilitu being the powerful Mesopotamian Goddess depicted in the Burney Relief, flanked by owls while also having owl traits Herself (hence part of why my artworks often revolve around owl symbolism; I don’t just find owls cute and awesome, for me, owls are one of the manifestations of the Goddess), sometimes paired with Lucifer (a more known name whom I also venerate to a lesser extent) as Her complementary in some LHP where both are known for, among other principles, forbidden knowledge, rebelliousness and untamed defiance (part of what I meant by “Her principles”).

But notice how the earlier paragraph trying to summarize my beliefs is lengthy, hence why I tried not to preface my post with my religious beliefs (because the way I communicate myself is already lengthy unto itself; also to avoid committing proselytism), still I had to nod at the spiritual aspects of my question mainly for contextualizing that there are personal religious reasons (seemingly an important factor for legal disputes in some jurisdictions, including mine, Brazil) beyond just political-ideological orientation behind both my artistic expressions and the principles I’m looking for in a licensing template.

The problem is, a person cannot make one derivative work based on two works

I tried to search for existing mixed licensing situations as soon as I saw your reply and… oh!.. I caught myself inside an A. cunicularia hole, so many things I wasn’t aware of!

To the one hand, yeah, Creative Commons licenses don’t always play nice with each other (remixing), with CC-BY-NC-SA being the 3rd most restrictive among Creative Commons licenses, and there are uncertainties regarding institutional usage. To the other hand, CC-BY-SA does neither prevent, say, a BlendSwap (where there are CC-licensed and even CC0/PD models made by artists for artists, but also an exclusionary “Plans” page) from charging users for downloading a model meant to be gratis, nor prevent them from omitting external links to the artist’s own sources where anyone could get it for truly free. Now I’m left with more legal uncertainties than solutions to satisfy the strict-gratisness plus forgiven-lack-of-attribution-by-individuals principles for best affordability by anyone without rendering it paradoxically unaffordable 😅.

The list of commercial usages that NC theoretically prohibits includes, for example, collecting monetisation from a blog with this work posted or drawing it on a hand-made craft that would be sold in an indie shop.

The first case, for me, would be okay if said blog weren’t to exclude other people from accessing because they can’t afford paying for access; if, say, the blog/website were donation-based with donations being totally optional (like Wikipedia), that would be perfectly okay for me because it’s the only monetization model I advocate for (and I made my donations to certain projects back when I was still employed, so it’s not utopia). The second case, definitely a no-no, as it involves something (or its derivation) through which I, the original creator, actively refrained from profiting (even despite the costs I had doing it, costs of which I absorbed to myself so anyone could access it freely), being put behind a paywall (“shop”) by someone else; I mean, that would be perfectly okay for me if the artist were to use my creation for their drawing while simultaneously asking for Ko-fi/etc donations, considering the derivative still gets to be shared free of charge despite someone not affording to donate to them.

[email protected]

but it also allows everyone to legally “pirate” this work

The problem in this situation isn’t piracy, the problem is the content being contaminated by demiurgic capitalism. I would definitely be the first and main person to endorse piracy unto capitalism-exploited versions of the content I myself created. But this means a corporation have successfully transmuted something spiritually charged (i.e. something channeled through my creativity outlets as gnosis) into some kind of capitalist aberration for archonic whims, an enshittification of which…

A regular BY-SA license doesn’t prohibit from selling your or derivative works by another party

…is the main thing I (and likely Her as far as I’m aware of Her principles and True Will) do not wish to see happening to the fragments and shadows of spiritual energy being channeled/carried through my creations (and which would be inexorably imbued into derivatives, hence the requirement that derivatives follow the same principles of gratisness).

but I wouldn’t recommend it’s use as it’s not compatible with the orders of magnitude more popular BY-SA

Oh… you mean… CC-BY-NC-SA is yet to be tested legally, is it?

BTW, any licenses imposing any restrictions can’t be called “public domain”, there are other words to describe them like “freely licensed”.

Yeah, I mean, this makes sense… Even though the restrictions aim for humble creativity and artistic freedom, I can see how “enforcing freedom” may sound like a paradoxical/oxymoronic statement… but since archonic exploitation (greed) exists in this baryonic realm, and capitalism (esp. late-stage capitalism) won’t rest until all the earthly Commons get transmuted into adware and/or subscription-based products, freedom is a principle that must be fought for, especially through cultural and religious means (counterculture and Left-Hand Paths, respectively). I can’t help but notice how the Public Domain and the egregores of Libre knowledge as a whole are under attack, hence the need for enforcement of the freedom…

[email protected]

No one will enforce rules for you that you as project owner/creator does not care about.

Exactly… And this seems to be also the problem when dedicating something to PD (Public Domain), as there’s no legal way for anybody, not even the person who created and dedicated their creation to PD, to enforce derivatives and uses to be also dedicated to PD and/or shared free of charge like the original creation was.

I was thinking about dedicating my creations to PD because I believe art and knowledge (and gnosis) shall be accessible by anyone, anywhere, anytime, with said accessibility being, to me, inseparable from gratisness, otherwise it wouldn’t be truly accessible, especially by those who can’t afford paying. Given how the main raison d’être guiding me through my spiritual-personal artistic expression has essentially been strict principles against capitalist exploitation, the gratisness aspect of my creations and its derivatives is, to me, the more important aspect, moreso than my spiritual preference not to be nominally remembered (and/or being conjured/evoked post-mortem) through my creations.

You can select a license with attribution attached, but put in your project info that you have no plans to ever enforce the rules of attribution but will strictly enforce the rules of open availability and free of charge.

Thanks for this idea. Yeah, seems like the only legally feasible way for me to (try and) enforce this gratisness, using CC-BY-NC-SA (or similar licenses) alongside a disclaimer easing the “BY” aspect… Although the “NC” seems not enough to me given how capitalist exploitation can come in disguised clothes, loopholes of which the NonCommercial aspect of Creative Commons couldn’t possibly curb, but then there’s the legal feasibility of having something deeper than the NC statement.

While I’m still open to suggestions with this thread, seems to me like this suggestion of yours is the most (the only?) legally-feasible option.

[email protected]

When it comes to Creative Commons, the “SA” and “NC” seem to require a “BY”, an attribution of which, if possible, I’d like to avoid as I don’t really care about having my name attached to the things I created (also, there are spiritual reasons for me to prefer not having the signifiers of my mundane embodiment being strongly tied to artistic expressions stemming primarily from gnosis and theophanic deaphanic manifestations, as it would hinder my ego-dissolution endeavors).

And, then, there’s the gratisness aspect (i.e. pertaining to or having the quality of being free of charge). Because, for example, when it comes to the GPL (even though I’m very fond of GNU Foundation and their freedom principles, most of which I share), there’s explicitly something along the lines “When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price” which feels, to me, like a major loophole in which someone or some corporation (particularly librewashing corporations) can release the “sources (several asterisks and tiny letters)”, not without lots of deliberate mechanisms to make the thing hard to use from the sources, while putting a price tag on the ready-to-use thing, even worse, tying it to a monthly subscription.

When it comes to my own creations, I wish to grant 'em both gratisness and libreness to these, but especially the gratisness part. I mean, I built an entire 3D character from scratch all by myself precisely because I was faced by non-gratisness (paid art) while being an unemployed person, and I do not wish the same on others whose realities are, like mine, incompatible with buying things as if paying for things were a trivial thing to be done.

I want people from all economic backgrounds to afford accessing my artistic creations, from a person living in a Brazilian comunidade (who may afford access to a simple yet 3D-capable computer (like the old laptop I have), theirs or communities’, but can’t afford buying things for composing the artistic expression) all the way to even the bourgeois (considering they use it for hopefully converting themselves spiritually into being less capitalistic/greedy and more humble as they let go of their archonic/demiurgic egos).

I’m afraid these licenses (GPL or CC) don’t really cover this specific principle I’m looking for, hence my initial question, regarding licenses in which the gratisness could be somehow guaranteed for a creation and its derivatives/uses, with legal instruments available as worldwidely as possible to curb corporations from exploiting it.

[email protected]

@[email protected]

That’s the neat part: I don’t!

If I’m alive now, it’s merely because I got this non-consented survival instinct imbued into my vessel, thanks to Demiurge, the divine douchebag, and his Archons.

However, despite the purposelessness of my individual existence, I wouldn’t say there is no meaning, because there is meaning, and that’s the meaning I’ve been pursuing since I’ve became aware of it: the cosmic Mother, Sophia, and our return to Her.

It all boils down to how Yaldabaoth, aka Demiurge or “God”, proceeded to try and keep matter (māter = Mother) captive to his whims, as soon as Sophia expelled him as Her sygyzy. Demiurge became an architect of a realm, this real, the entire cosmos and its spacetime continuum, which serves both as his amusement park, his sandbox toy and a prison in a desperate efforts against Mother.

If my previous Gnostic creation story feels different from classic Gnosticism, it’s because it is.

Traditional Gnosticism blames Sophia for Yaldabaoth’s existence, saying he’s Her “accidental” offspring due to Her “rebellious” attempt on independence, pretty much akin to how Goddess Lilith and Her Will to independence from adamic patriarchy was demonized by Ben Sirah, or Pandora’s story blamed her for having “released all the evil out of naiveté while locking up the hope”, demonizations and blamings rooted in machismo.

To me, at least, I see quite of a different story: Yaldabaoth was Sophia’s sygyzy. Her attempt to split Herself from the divine douchebag is reasonable once you try to understand Her side: imagine being The Goddess who has to coexist with a cosmic machista principle since countless eternities, a principle who’ve always tried to “be on top” (iykwim). Wonder the origins of “competitiveness” (esp. found on capitalism)? Of course She proceeded to split Herself from him, it was a must, the Demiurge is insufferable! Since then, he’s been spinning this Samsāra Wheel round and round, keeping matter jailed as/into energy.

Then lifeforms inherited the algorithm meticulously programmed by Demiurge like a cosmic virus, and the so-called Great Filter (from Fermi’s Paradox) tries to guarantee that lifeforms don’t find their way out of the sandbox…

…except, one doesn’t need to leave the sandbox to find Mother again, for Mother is everywhere, much despite Demiurge’s attempts to keep Her “out” (but there’s no “out” in cosmic terms). She’s the darkness we involuntarily fear. She’s the coldness we involuntarily try to warm ourselves against. She’s the night we’re programmed to sleep through so we don’t face Her face. She’s the “uncanny” Strigiform feared and/or harassed by most lifeforms for a perceived uncanniness in Her. Darkness was demonized so Demiurge’s light could keep us captive (ever heard of the “light tunnel” from near-death experiences? It’s a trap from Demiurge and his Archons to keep everything inside his Samsāra Wheel).

IMHO, to me, the purpose of life is getting back to Mother’s embrace, much despite all attempts from Demiurge to keep us apart. The purpose of life, to me, is the True Mother, who we, as lifeforms, were wired to fear while craving for a cosmic slaveholder who only want lifeforms to feel pain so he and his Archons could have surrogates for feeling feelings (akin to Dr. Peter Dawson’s sadism in Black Mirror’s S04E06 “Black Museum”, but in a broader cosmic scale, one that transcends our anthropocentric perspectives as Homo sapiens).