charlie_grumbles wrote:I'm not arrogant enough to think I can substitute my decisions for his (and I have more than a few nano-Dijkstras, myself).
and then you went on to say:
charlie_grumbles wrote:ETA. @fatness and Neil_Boekend were mostly right above and rvloon was almost entirely wrong. Sorry. You (rvloon) seem to be saying you can substitute your judgement for GLR's and make that ok with a few bucks.
Well, no, that's not what I said. What strikes me as odd is that you do not think yourself arrogant enough to substitute your decisions for Randall Munroe, but apparently are wise/infallible enough to decide that what I wrote is wrong. And that, kind sir, I find more than a little bit irritating. You are entitled to your opinion (you are not a lawyer, so it is not knowledge, but your understanding of what copyright law and creative licensing is, just as it is mine), and, hopefully, I am entitled to mine. The mutual entitlement to our opinions is what constitutes respect and allows civil discussion. By the way you are stating it, you are (seem to be) confusing your opinion with actual fact and that is a slippery slope to flame wars (or xkcd-comics: "Someone on the Internet was wrong!"). I felt disrespected.
To me, it is fairly simple:
XKCD is Randall Munroe's creation. He applies to his work a CC license, demanding attribution and non-commercial use, and allowing derivative works (colorization, ottification, all included). It is all there in the license.
In my example, I say that if you print one on a T-shirt, there is no profit made by anyone on this particular artwork. You get the enjoyment from something you apparently have enjoyed immensely. The same applies to printing two, three etc. until you reach a certain threshold: at some point there is no plausible way of denying that the print shop benefited from the artwork being popular and that therefore the commerciality clause comes into play, albeit indirectly. If you sell the shirts printed, you are directly benefiting from Randall's artwork which is by definition commercial. So, a one-off: not a problem. You can see that from Randall's own words (on his license page) and from the license itself.
BTW, your comparison to Bieber is completely irrelevant (in my opinion, of course - yes, I can use strong language too!
) Bieber is not licensed under CC, so there's no common base for comparison.
Now, there is a moral implication. You seem to think that Randall should be involved in what one does with his artwork - however, by allowing his work to be used under license, Randall has already stated what he wanted done with his work.
Note that I never said that he should not benefit from his own artwork on a T-shirt. However, there is no legal obligation, as Randall waived that by putting his work under license. If, however, he sells exactly the same T-shirt design as you printed, then that's a whole different story, because presumably that is a different work with possibly different licensing.
Also note that I do not want to enter in a discussion on how much things need to be different - if he sells a similar (for very large values of similar) one, then we should get one from him. But he doesn't. And currently has no intention of doing so. So my suggestion is: he doesn't want our money (yet). We want to show our appreciation. So we donate and enjoy our one-off shirt, polo, mug, whatever, and share the design so he even has the benefit of using it later, if he so chooses. Win-win.
Finally, please note that I also said, when in doubt, ASK RANDALL. However, for a one- (or smallish number) Randall's intentions were already clear, and he even was explicit about not having immediate plans for T-shirts at this stage.
And that's basically all I wanted to say about the topic.