Implicating creative_commons → freely_redistributable
Link to implication

Reason:

All forms of the Creative Commons licenses allow redistribution with attribution.
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/

If freely_redistributable should mean that commercial distribution is allowed as well, then by-sa, by-nd, and by can implicate it instead.

Also, maybe all these by* tags should be renamed cc-by*

EDIT: The tag implication creative_commons -> freely_redistributable (forum #166619) has been rejected by @bitWolfy.

In the absence of any specific handling of licensing (A separate field for license, or at least a separate tag type), this seems sensible.

Strongly agree about by-*, it's pretty ambiguous without the cc-. Especially 'by', which looks like a copy-paste error TBH.

savageorange said:
(A separate field for license, or at least a separate tag type)

Wonder if we should have a "License" field. Just make the standard tag "Unlicensed."

Furrin_Gok said:
Wonder if we should have a "License" field. Just make the standard tag "Unlicensed."

.. I Am Not A Lawyer, but I'm pretty sure that "Unlicensed" means something other than that, legally[1]. "Unknown" might be better.

I say this partly because of 'default' licensing -- for example, if you want to release something as public domain (aka 'do literally anything with this'), in many cases you simply cannot -- there are privileges you are legally unable to dispense with. The CC0 license was created to address this (it's basically 'as close to public domain as possible')

Now, like I said, while IANAL, that does look to me like there isn't such a thing as a creative work that isn't released under a license (whether implicit or explicit), in most countries.

[1] 'unlicensed use of trademarked material', is more of a typical use of the word, IME. Which implies a failure to negotiate a specific license with the creator, rather than the creator's failure to assign a license to the work.

A few CC-related things I noticed while writing this post:

• There is already a character 'cc' and artist 'cc'
• We don't have a CC0 tag, do we want one?

More implications:
public_domain -> freely_redistributable, freely_adaptable
cc0 -> creative_commons, freely_redistributable, freely_adaptable
by -> creative_commons, freely_adaptable
gnu_fdl -> freely_redistributable, freely_adaptable
by-nc-sa, by-sa, by-nc or just by-sa -> freely_adaptable

The tag implication creative_commons -> freely_redistributable (forum #166619) has been rejected by @bitWolfy.

Just in case this gets brought up again in the future:

A post may have cc work but may not be freely redistributable. CC is not copyleft.

Same with public domain, a work may have some parts in public domain, but not all of it may be.

Additionally, an author may release their work under a freely distributable license, but may contain portions of other works they do not have the rights for.

Having licensing implications like this is a very bad idea and should never be done.