Well that's super. I already explained that using a non-commercial license is no better than just having normal copyright with republishing permissions, but you chose to ignore it. So, as the kids say: "whatever".

Creative commons licenses are really about allowing remixing and re-use. You can see this from the deprecated licenses that were clearly created to allow and legitimate sampling and quotation of the most valuable part of a work, mostly for commercial use. The Non-commercial element is a token nod, though a useful one.

Folk might do well to step back and do a bit of thinking about this. There are lots of people creating original work who are frustrated by lack of mainstream publication, and some choose to make public some of their work to generate interest (like Calvin Harris did on My Space). It can indeed get you noticed.
There's another side though, like e.g. the problems within Linux, such as the kernel having to be trademarked by Torvalds because some random crook trademarked the name for his own benefit. Also the problems where massive, dominating companies, like Google, can create things from free, open-source code and and then use it in nefarious ways. Despite Linux and associated open-source software being employed, you end up back into the position of being locked into systems (Android on phones) as a result of what is essentially near monopoly behaviour. Businesses seem to just routinely abuse open-source content. Ubuntu brought many people to Linux (essentially using Debian as a basis), but now it's getting more and more commercial and it occupies a powerful position.

There seems to be this attitude that just because Esperanto is a democratised entity that everything (including the work of people who aren't looking to make mega-bucks or are performing a labour of love) needs to be made into public property. In a better world with a different economic organisation, that would be great, but not in this world. Who can afford to expend effort just so others can benefit from it? You can be sure people using your stuff for derivative work won't be knocking on your door to share the proceeds.

I'll leave you dreaming about your next scheme to become an internet billionaire.

Vestitor:There seems to be this attitude that just because Esperanto is a democratised entity that everything (including the work of people who aren't looking to make mega-bucks or are performing a labour of love) needs to be made into public property

I am pretty sure that about a month ago you took the exact opposite position

I'll leave you dreaming about your next scheme to become an internet billionaire.

Can you elaborate? I don't get this point.

Alkanadi:

Vestitor:There seems to be this attitude that just because Esperanto is a democratised entity that everything (including the work of people who aren't looking to make mega-bucks or are performing a labour of love) needs to be made into public property

I am pretty sure that about a month ago you took the exact opposite position

You're mistaken. Re-attach the partial quote to the rest of what I wrote and you'll see why.

Alkanadi:

I'll leave you dreaming about your next scheme to become an internet billionaire.

Can you elaborate? I don't get this point.

You understand it perfectly well.

Vestitor:You understand it perfectly well.

"The presumption that others have a mind is termed a theory of mind because each human can only intuit the existence of their own mind through introspection, and no one has direct access to the mind of another" Link

You're right, I was only assuming you have a mind. We all make mistakes. But then if you don't have a mind something like I assume for myself I'm rather wasting my time communicating it, right? We're all wasting our time.

Not being a solipsist (an extreme, though perfectly arguable, position) causes people to assume that other people are more-or-less the same as themselves with regard to cognitive functions.

All this doesn't really matter though, because you know exactly what I meant, but you think its clever to react with a link to wikipedia's theory of mind article.

Alkanadi:By the way, regarding the Esperanto version of your blog, have you thought about putting it under a creative commons license? People would be able to use your content for free as long as they give you credit.

Why not let the poster do what he wants with his own blog without you adding in your own two cents that wasn't asked for. Again this whole thread has been derailed, because you felt the need to add your own advice when it wasn't asked for.

I'm still trying to figure out why you feel the need to come up with some idea of using Esperanto to make money on the internet. It seems to be a frequent topic in almost everything you post.

eriksangel15:...using Esperanto to make money on the internet.

Creative Commons is not about money.

Vestitor:...because you know exactly what I meant...

Supposing that you have well developed theory of mind, you would understand that not everyone has the same information as you do.

erinja:Right. It's obvious that people can link to the blog without giving special licensing permissions. Therefore there is no point in giving special Creative Commons permissions, just so someone can copy your stuff and use your content to drive traffic to their own website rather than to yours. Fortunately there are a million ways of promoting your work and driving traffic to your blog post without telling people that it's ok to go ahead and copy your stuff.

This exactly sums up my thoughts. I see absolutely no benefit in allowing a creative commons licence. Alkandi, I don't know why you keep arguing the point, it's not going to happen. Maybe it is a pet project of yours, but it won't benefit my blog at all.

rapn21:...you keep arguing the point, it's not going to happen.

Do I keep arguing the point or am I responding to the misinformation?

From your first comment, it was obvious that you weren't interesting. And I don't care/respect your decision to do what you want.