One of the licenses ("to give the artist their right to redistribute their work any way they like") now get a certain license applied (CC BY-NC-SA), to "give the artist their right to redistribute their work any way they like"

This reasoning falls a bit short, since:

1. It's actually more of a restriction over how an author may control the distribution/monetization/anything else covered by the license chosen, when a platform assigns a license to entries mandating their non-BotB usage (I assume this is how it's supposed to be implied, at least)
2. "All rights reserved" still applies by copyright law, when anything else isn't specifically mentioned

I agree that the legal "waiver" (CC BY-ND) the author gives BotB for each entry, is necessary.

.. And perhaps, just like how it's done now, an additional license could provide some additional clarity for those who don't understand copyright law.

But, perhaps the author could at least then choose from a list of available licenses? Maybe the most common CC-variations for starters.

But that also makes me wonder, why not also "All Rights Reserved"? I don't see how this could cause any liability concerns for BotB, given the presence of the "waiver". Nor do I understand how the actions taken of other people elsewhere with BotB-entries is of BotB's concern.

This is something that's been on my mind for a while. It's far from a critical issue, but perhaps something to consider for the future that might benefit authors on BotB. What do you people think? Discuss!

glitz gal is 100% right here & if you wanna give the artist most rights you should at least go for CC BY-SA which is what i always prefer to upload Anything i make with

personally i'm fine with it since that's the license i use anyway, but it would definitely be good for people to have more control over the licensing terms of their works

there might be some complications i'm not aware of idk

i'm confused why you would want CC-BY-SA over CC-BY-NC-SA. why would you just give away the ability for others to use your work commercially when they could also just ask you and pay you if you wanted paid? am i missing something here - how is NC restricting the author more?

this was also sort of discussed in a related thread by roz last year: https://battleofthebits.com/academy/GroupThread/35340/Feature+request%3A+Creative+Commons+0+Dedication/

moreso i was wanting a BY-SA over BY-ND since thats the one BotB uses for its distribution, generally I don't like licenses that disencourage derivative works which BY-ND does so that's why I just defaulted towards SA in place,

BY-NC-SA though, I dunno, generally I also don't hate commercial use being possible with a song. I know I'd wanna use some of my publishings for itch.io games, so I'd rather allow the ability for commercial use then disavow it completely. NC disables all commercial uses, so I couldn't just permit that usage even if I wanted to, which sucks...

the NC clause doesn't apply to you as the rights holder/licensor though, you can do whatever you want with it, it just prohibits others from using your work commercially (without your explicit, separate permission).

it's the first point here

In the scenario where I'd actually want others to monetize my music (say if I want to give others monetary incitaments to spread my work), "advertising" the entries with a somewhat restrictive license (CC BY-NC-SA) might be counter productive to that cause.

Maybe they won't even ask, and think that it's the licensing I choose myself?

Being able to choose your license would solve this. I don't think there's a "one size fits all".

generally yea just choosing your own license would be the best fit here lol, i just don't like when i feel derivative use is being discouraged though i'm also not an expert on Creative Commons xP

I'm open to making some changes, but not on a granular level. For example: if people want to set a different license for all their content on the site I can make that setting, but choosing a different license for each individual entry is probably not going to happen.

I've also updated the lyceum page about the licenses:
https://battleofthebits.com/lyceum/View/BotB+CC+License

I'd be down for a profile-wide license change option 100%, I wasn't really going to wanna set them individually anyways

admins discussed and wordings were slightly updated:
https://battleofthebits.com/lyceum/View/BotB+CC+License

I actually decided to include the licensing info inside my MML entry, partially because I was recycling it from a video game soundtrack that also used that particular sound driver, and also because I knew Battle of the Bits was doing these licenses in the first place. I just simply had to include the licenses that the site used.