[cwillu]

For what it's worth, CC-NC is not akin to the GPL, at all.

The GPL says “you can sell this if you want, but whoever you sell it to can still do whatever they want with it, subject to the same terms.”

CC-NC says “you can't do whatever you want with this”

Which isn't to say that you're wrong to use whatever license you like, just that it's very much not similar in spirit to the GPL. Protecting the right of others to make derivatives of the thing being licensed is, in fact, the entire point of the license.

[bayindirh]

By akin, I didn't mean it's functionally equivalent.

GPLv3 is one of the strongest copyleft licenses for software out there, forcing re-sharing of changes while preventing any source closing. CC-BY-NC is the strictest CC license which allows sharing, with credit, with no commercial use and no derivatives.

Hence I tried to aim for "I'm selecting the one of the most strict license for sharing my photos, as I do the same for my software, yet AI systems disregard my license every occasion and just rip what I put out without my consent or consideration of the license I use for these, hence I refuse to use, or support AI models which are fed like this".

Hope this helps.

[cwillu]

You can apply CC-BY-NC to software, people have done it. And it's recognized as _not_ being an open license, it's at best an “open-access” or “source-visible” license, because of the usage restrictions.

The entire point of an open-source license is that you're _preventing_ people from restricting modification and derivative use. The whole point of the AGPL was to prevent a hack that companies found to abuse the software's license and prevent derivative use of their changes.

I'm not saying you're morally in the wrong for choosing a license that doesn't permit commercial use, but I _am_ saying that it's contrary to the spirit of the license you're claiming it's akin to.

Hope this helps.

[livrem]

CC-BY-SA is much closer to GPL.