Also consider independent or small-chain pharmacies. I’m spoiled for choice in downtown Toronto, there are a handful within a few minute walk. The one I picked (because it was the closest) was super friendly and convenient. Even though they have shorter hours I can walk in and be out with my prescription in literally 30 seconds. If I have questions I can call and someone picks up the phone. On top of this way better service they have never charged beyond my insurance’s coverage, so I haven’t paid a dime out of pocket.

If you can this is definitely the way to go.

You can consider yourself whatever you want for however long you want.

If you feel young and people thing you are weird for saying so that is their problem. Young is a feeling not a number.

I’ve been using nginx forever. It works, I can do almost everything I want, even if more complex things sometimes require some contortions. I’m not sure I would pick it again if starting from scratch, but I have no problems that are worth switching for.

Are you a lawyer?

I am not. Are you?

Including a link to a Creative Commons license in a comment footer will not do that.

It is when you give it a different name which doesn’t reflect the actual behaviour of the license.

Ok. So you should probably frame your license like that. Instead of saying “Anti Commercial-AI license” say “Pro Non-commercial-AI license”.

No, it is more. You aren’t restricting anything, it is just a superset of uses. If you want to explicitly license your comments for wider use that is fine, but don’t misrepresent it as “Anti Commercial-AI”. Just frame it as licensed for non-commercial use.

I should add that there is one approach that could be taken here. Take this with a huge grain of salt because I am not a lawyer.

When you are posting on Lemmy you are likely granting an implicit license to Lemmy server operators to distribute your work. Basically because you understand that posting a public comment on Lemmy will make it available on your and other Lemmy servers it is assumed that it is ok to do that.

In other words you can’t write a story, post it on Lemmy, then sue every Lemmy instance that federated the comment and made it publicly available. That would be ridiculous.

There is a possible legal argument that twists this implicit grant to include AI training. Maybe you could have a disclaimer that this wasn’t the case. I don’t know how you would need to word this and if it would actually change anything. But I would talk to a lawyer.

Because you are effectively spreading misinformation.

Your behaviour leads people to believe that in order for their comments not to be used for commercial AI training they need to have a signature. But that isn’t true, at most the signature is allowing more uses of your comment, not restricting anything.

People already struggle to understand copyright. Adding more confusion is doing everyone reading your license a disservice.

You don’t need to license each of your comments. By default you retain all ownership. So you applying a license is strictly allowing more use. Basically if AI training was not allowed due to copyright than they can’t use any comment by default. If AI training is fair-use (which seems to be most companies’ claim) then it is irrelevant how you have licensed the comment.

In no situation does granting an additional license to a work restrict the ways in which works can be used under other licenses.

Because people don’t understand how copyright works.

In most countries any copyrightable work that you produce is automatically covered by copyright. You don’t need to do anything additional to gain that protection.

Most Lemmy instances don’t have any sort of licensing grant in their terms of service. So that means that the original author maintains all ownership of their work.

So technically what these people are doing is granting a license to their comment that allows it to be used for more than would otherwise be allowed by the default copyright protections.

What they are probably trying to accomplish is to revoke the ability for commercial enterprises to use their comments. However that is already the default state so it is pretty irrelevant. Basically any company that cares about copyright and thinks that what they are doing isn’t allowed as fair use already wouldn’t be able to use their comments without the license note. So by adding the license note all they are doing is allowing non-commercial AI to scrape it (which is probably not what was intended). Of course most AI scraping companies don’t care about copyright or think that their use is not protected under copyright. So it is again irrelevant.