[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [libreplanet-discuss] [Trisquel-users] Final Thesis: H-node

From: Michał 'rysiek' Woźniak
Subject: Re: [libreplanet-discuss] [Trisquel-users] Final Thesis: H-node
Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 21:20:04 +0200
User-agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/3.9-0.slh.5-aptosid-amd64; KDE/4.8.4; x86_64; ; )


Dnia środa, 15 maja 2013 o 20:41:49 Thomas Harding napisał(a):
> > That is too bad. Thank you for the info.
> > 
> > I think that if their name is Creative Commons, those are the licenses
> > they should support. If they want to support other licenses that do not
> > belong to the commons, they should make another name for that group:
> > perhaps Non-creative Restrictions.

That would be too strong. They did help the libre culture movement thrive, in 
no small part thanks to their advocacy and licenses. And I have to acknowledge 
and recognize that years ago -NC and -ND were indeed needed to get the first 
artists on-board with CC.

However, now, with CC and libre culture movement are both well known, they are 
starting to be a liability, though.

> Perhaps the way they took is longer than expected, but as far as I know,
> the /final/ goal is to get rid of NC- and ND- .
> NC-:
> just bullshit


> ND- :
> That's really not obvious a /content/ (an artifact) has to be freed (as
> in freedom), and even FSF GFDL, which purpose is documentation,
> offer(ed?) for invariant sections.
> I acknowledge the fact CC unclearly mixes free and non free, and that's
> make unclear not only to the recipient but the "provider" too what
> freedom (of content) is, so maybe one interest of that group would be to
> make things "more obvious" (such as make clearly different logos and
> licenses names to avoids ambiguity).


> Nevertheless, there are still needs to offer an /invariant/ licence on
> works : if you author an essay /on/ Free Software, you certainly won't
> want someone introduces subtles changes to turn it /against/ Free
> Sofware (moreover keeping your signature :).

That would be illegal regardless of the license. Nobody has the right to claim 
your authorship over something you did not create; nobody has the right to 
modify your work and claim it is still your work.

-ND is unnecessary for that purpose.

As far as derivative works that build upon the original to change the meaning 
are concerned (without misrepresentation of authorship), I do not feel we need 
licensing restrictions for that. That feels too close to censorship for my 
liking -- "thou shall not use my own words against me".

One should strive to use words that are hard to use against one's views; 
besides, people that twist one's views will not look at the license...

What is even more unfortunate, -ND stops people from doing things most of us 
would say would be OK. Like *improving* upon some work, creating better 
arguments for example. Like *translating* into another language to disseminate 
knowledge and argumentation. These things are genuinely *good*, but people 
that would like to do them *will* look at the license, and will then get the 
message they cannot proceed...

And another thing -- you sound like you think that there is only one context 
in which a given work can be used. E.g. "an essay on free software" as an 
article to read and get argumentation from. Thing is, any work can be used in 
any context.

Think for a moment about a teacher in an IT class using such essay as 
educational material, modifying it just a bit so that the class can better 
understand it, or using it as a basis for an in-class discussion. -ND would 
not allow for that.

Think about how artists used different kinds of "materials" for their works of 
art -- for example Duchamp's "Fountain":

Such an essay could easily be used in an "art" context, for example as a basis 
of vocabulary for some free-software scripted (as in: done by scripts in 
interpreted programming languages) poem writing contest. An example of 
something similar is HaikuLeaks:

I bet we could find similar haikus in GNU documentation, FSF policy papers, 
Linux documentation. -ND would not allow anybody to use these in such a 
context -- but I would say that's a genuine loss.

So tl;dr:
-ND does not protect against things we want it to protect against; and at the 
same time stops people from doing things we might consider interesting or 
-ND should go the way of the Dodo.

> On the other hand, it's up to another person to seed from your work --
> and others -- to make what she wants, and allowing /large parts/ of your
> work to be re-employed would be /mandatory to [un]make the ideas [un]free/.

Exactly. -ND is a drag here. Culture is always derivative and trying to work 
against such derivatives is counter-productive. Sorry for referring to a YT 
video, but it nicely illustrates the point (and DownloadHelper goes a long way 
for those of us that refuse to use flash ;) ):

> That's the way art and more generally ideas goes, and that's the way
> been forgotten for a century :)


> Such a group could advocacy either in a way or the other, but placed
> "here" is an intend to go the right one. Here (that thread), this is "un
> procès d'intentions".

Michał "rysiek" Woźniak

Fundacja Wolnego i Otwartego Oprogramowania

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]