Of course you're right here. I've used "restrictive" in the specific sense in which it used in the Free Software and Free Culture world. If you look those positions up, you'll find that no "usage" restriction on the material is actually well-defined in those contexts.
There are different views in the "free software world" and not all agree on this point.
I would have difficulties to publish in a place where third parties could change my word without removing my name. This is a common flaw that I see in many arguments (in fact, often the same arguments) brought against "non restrictive" (in the same sense as above) licenses. The fact that *the license* doesn't say you cannot do that, does not main it legal to do. In fact, misattributing content to someone is prone to libel and/or plagiarism risks.
For example the text presents a personal experiment (which often happens in creative research for example) and is reused and transformed without reference to the original then my intention is lost and there is no plagiarism but my name is still there. Lets take the exact example of this conversation and the way by quoting the text you select (rightly) what you want to answer and how it transforms what I originally intended to say.
Depending on the context, that might violate either the law or the ethical practices of a specific community (the scientific one in our case). So CC0 doesn't necessarily mean "free for all" as it might seem at first sight.
I never said that, I only meant that by not referencing to the original document it becomes impossible to keep the integrity of the argument.
But anyone, I'm more of a copyleft kind of person, so it really shouldn't be up to me to defend CC0 in this context :-), but yes CC-BY-SA does allow commercial use by third parties and I'm totally fine with that. I'm a scientist and as such I want the results of my work to be shared as much as possible,
Yes but I do not see why referring to original sources could prevent your work to be shared, unless the intention of the persons who shares it is to transform the content of your work, which is also possible also for scientific research.
and I'm already paid for my work,
I suppose you do not work alone and also, as we are living in a complex social system, probably some direct or indirect contributors to your work are less paid.
so I couldn't care less when: a) my work is shared, and b) others make money out of it. Getting some of those money into my pocket will not improve at all my ability to produce additional similar content in the future.
I never talked about this issue which is a completely different one, what I meant is: If my argument is transformed and reused without reference to the original, then my work could be transformed to the benefit of the economical structure that I am trying to advocate against, instead of benefiting to the networks that I want to value. I mean, new ideas and research could be appropriated by larger corporations that have way much more visibility than the more fragile critical thinking networks. Those corporations have the means to quickly adapt to new situations, they also have wider access to the media, and this allows them to transform their public image according to any new model proposed to them, reinforcing their already strong visibility. This process has largely contributed over history to reinforce the wealthiest of this world, while it also contributes to making even more invisible the alternatives and the less favored ones who historically rely on their capacity of invention to organize different models for surviving. **n.