I am totally with you on this, Dave, even though my reasons for being totally with you are too elaborate to enumerate here. I will try to provide a shorthand version:
1. Traditional publishing, why the obsession? If the point of art is to have people see/hear/experience it, then why would you limit yourself to a book of poetry that might sell 1,000 copies at best, at least if you are not Mary Oliver. If you can get your work out there, not only through traditional publishing, but other means as well, why wouldn’t you?
It’s so weird to me that people want to be stingy with their work, to purposefully limit their audience, to be selective about who reads and engages with their pieces.
(I know that’s sort of tangential to what you are saying, but I think the stronghold traditional publishing has on us is in large part what drives the paranoia about work being published in any nontraditional way and shared in an experimental/experiential way with others.)
2. This topic runs deep for me. As a poet married to a computer programmer, and having worked with many engineering types over the course of my career, I have strong feelings on this issue, both from the writing angle and the coding angle. And I’d like to take this opportunity to flip Microsoft the bird. I should go egg Gates’ house. He lives a stone’s throw away from me. But I won’t do that because he started the Gates Foundation, which as far as I can tell, is doing nothing but good things for the world and its inhabitants.
3. I have the no derivatives license on my site, and now I am wondering if I should take that off and go only for the attribution part with an explanation about why I am going that route just below the Creative Commons logo.
4. As usual, you are right.