>I am grateful for the contributions of the community. Every Clojure release incorporates many contributions. [...] Open source is a no-strings-attached gift, and all participants should recognize it as such.
>The time to re-examine preconceptions about open source is right now. Morale erosion amongst creators is a real thing.
Sad that it has to be said. I think as a creator you need to brace yourself for the reality of what it means to offer something to the world. There is a sort of normal distribution of consumers and some can be surprisingly toxic.
- Game developers
- Authors of popular novels that have yet to finish ("GRRM is not your bitch")
- Star Wars
With a game, movie or another peice of culture, the law can hinder your fork. If you want to make the Star Wars episode you wish had existed, you have to navigate the tretcherous waters of fair use and copyright. There are also plenty of tales of indie game developers attempting to remix a game from their childhood on a new platform only to get a cease and desist as soon as the rights holders get wind of it.
You are not entitled to make money off it, just like you aren't entitled to make money off that open source project you forked.
Nope. It's a derivative work, and, as such, requires the permission of the people who own the copyright and trademarks.
> You are not entitled to make money off it
This matters less than you may think. There's a four-part test [1], and profit is considered, but the work not being for-profit doesn't make the work legal.
[1] https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107
Here's an old-ish article I like to link to, on Waxy.org, called "No Copyright Intended":
https://waxy.org/2011/12/no_copyright_intended/
> Under current copyright law, nearly every cover song on YouTube is technically illegal. Every fan-made music video, every mashup album, every supercut, every fanfic story? Quite probably illegal, though largely untested in court.
By all means, read the whole thing.
Here's a lawyer's take on it:
https://www.traverselegal.com/blog/can-derivative-works-be-c...
> Image yourself an artist (of any sort) who has drawn such great inspiration from another (copyrighted) work that you would like to modify that work to create something new. Are you allowed to do so? Could you get a copyright to your new creation? As with most questions in law, the answer is: it depends.
> “A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship” (17 U.S.C. § 101) is called a Derivative Work. The original copyright owner typically has exclusive rights to “prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work” (17 U.S.C. § 106(2)). It is considered copyright infringement to make or sell derivative works without permission from the original owner, which is where licenses typically come into play.
Again... make or sell. Not making a profit off the work doesn't necessarily protect you.