I want to say many things but others already said them, like kharnov, Viech or Calinou, especially these sentences:
kharnov wrote:Do you really think an NC clause will stop a scummy site like that? I doubt they even notice there's a license half the time.
Viech wrote:If an external game guide is made for Unvanquished and someone manages to make any money with it, then we've done it and made Unvanquished a popular video game!
Calinou wrote:share-alike license serves the goal to protect your work from unethical exploitation equally well.
Licenses are for honest people only, it's how you say to honest people how they must work with you. Dishonest people don't care about license, and they don't want to work with you. If you want someone being fair with you, -SA clause fits the need. If someone wants to scam some people, he probably does not respect the -SA too. So, having complicated clauses only hamper honest people.
I've nothing against -SA clause even if I don't use it myself when I start a project, and it generally fits the need when you need to be “protective”, the -SA clause works well, it's the “fairness needed” clause everyone wants.
I don't like at all the -NC clause because its meaning is unclear. What is commercial ? I don't like complicated clauses with vague borders. I don't like -ND clause because it does not allow maintenance. So for wiki or for assets, the less -NC and the less -ND clause there is, the more I'm happy ! :-)
Also, this argument is just an opinion but the -NC clause means the moral authority is money, and I don't like that. I don't like when people think “whatever I do it's OK because I make no money with it” like if money is the god who has all the power to decide which is good and which is bad, and the -NC clause encourages this way of thinking. It's because I don't like how our commercial world is wrong I don't like the -NC clause : it's giving the power to that « commercial world » to decide what is good or not.
Also, using -NC or -ND clause just disqualifies the project on some media. For example that french website referencing open source games removed the Unvanquished article I wrote when they discovered that behind the official "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5" announcement for assets (see COPYING.txt), some assets were not free, because they follow the Debian License Policy. Since the -NC and -ND clause are not recognized as free (and I'm OK with that), so whatever is done under a -NC or -ND clause looks a bit wasted, and that's a bit unfortunate.
And I just want to give you a good example, the Warsow project was shipping assets with proprietary licenses since a long time, but for the Warsow 2.0 release they decided to switch to CC-BY-SA because it's the better way to keep their project alive :
Vic wrote:Majority of Warsow assets are now under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 license. Setting the assets free ensures Warsow doesn't get stuck in proprietary limbo and will remain an important piece of indie gaming in the future too. Players and developers alike are encouraged to innovate with free assets, and contribute more media back to the game! Or just simply use them in their own games if they comfort the license.
Be free ! Be Open ! Be Alive ! PROprietary is solid as rock, like tombstones.