A question about abandoned skins with certain licenses.

[JelleDekkers]

So I was browsing some popular skins on DA, and I came across this one. Now, according to the comment section, it doesn't work anymore, so I've just made a new version of it. It seems the skin has a no-derivatives license to it however. It also seems the original creator is not active anymore. Should I respect the license and not release the remake or should I just do it anyway (while still crediting the original of course)?

[balala]

So I was browsing some popular skins on DA, and I came across this one. Now, according to the comment section, it doesn't work anymore, so I've just made a new version of it. It seems the skin has a no-derivatives license to it however. It also seems the original creator is not active anymore. Should I respect the license and not release the remake or should I just do it anyway (while still crediting the original of course)?

Credit the original author, realise and publish it, if you want. Rainmeter skins usually (always?) are released under Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial-Share Alike 3.0.

[JelleDekkers]

Credit the original author, realise and publish it, if you want. Rainmeter skins usually (always?) are released under Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial-Share Alike 3.0.

Yeah but that's the problem. This one doesn't have that license, but it has "Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License" instead. That means no one's allowed to share any edited versions of it (no derivate works).

[jsmorley]

I think you should always respect the wishes of the original author. I would walk away from that skin. Just create something "similar" from scratch if you want.

[JelleDekkers]

I think you should always respect the wishes of the original author. I would walk away from that skin. Just create something "similar" from scratch if you want.

You're right, just like always