[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Fwd: The FSF Allows No Derivatives

From: Aaron Wolf
Subject: Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Fwd: The FSF Allows No Derivatives
Date: Sun, 17 May 2015 11:08:09 -0700
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.6.0

By the way, here's a concrete example of derivative culture that is
*not* like a simple translation:

I saw this crappy thing posted by Mozilla that uses all the bullshit
propaganda of DRM-pushing corporations:

That thing is *missing* a license indication. However, it is part of
this "webmaker" thing that encourages remixing. So, I fixed it:

Now, the fixed version was much easier to do than writing the whole
thing myself. The fixed version is far better and more valuable because
it accurately describes DRM as restrictions management, not right
management etc.

I marked it modified. My version does *not* represent the views of the
original author precisely. Who cares? The original author has bullshit
views. My version is an improvement.

Now, you want to promote the idea that my improvements should be
censored? It's more important that we can censor people adapting RMS
even if that means we get censored ourselves?

The freedoms of culture here are totally important. And we simply have
to accept that this goes all ways. I can and should fix propaganda from
corporate crap, and we must also tolerate people adapting RMS' views in
ways we might not like. Respecting these freedoms is not about false
attribution or misrepresentation.

On 05/17/2015 10:56 AM, Aaron Wolf wrote:
> Giuseppe,
> You have made a *major* error in your thinking. You are asserting that
> 100% of the value of a political writing is held in the value of
> identifying the message with an author. Your logic is saying that the
> *entire* value of RMS' writings is in identifying RMS' views so that
> people know specifically what RMS thinks.
> In fact, almost the entire value actually comes from the underlying
> value of the ideas. The value is in the message itself.
> Thus, a translation of my political writings into Italian offers value
> proportional to how valuable my message and perspective is. If my
> writing was pretty much worthless, the translation will be worthless. If
> my writings were inspiring, meaningful, insightful, then a translation
> that manages to uphold the important elements and be inspiring,
> meaningful, and insightful is itself just as valuable as the original.
> Yes, it holds just a bit less value in *one* regard: information about
> what I believe. For that one *minor* value, the translation is not
> worthless, but isn't perfect. But that value is rarely the important
> one. You could translate my work *without* crediting me (say if I used
> CC0 waiver of my copyright), and the mere spreading of valuable ideas
> would be valuable — and that value would be hampered if I used terms
> that made it harder for you to spread these ideas.
> On 05/17/2015 03:53 AM, Giuseppe Molica wrote:
>>> As already stated, the other (non-ND) CC licenses already *include*
>>> clauses already that state that modified version must be marked as
>>> modified and that authors can demand that their name be *removed* from
>>> derivatives they wish to not be associated with.
>> Let's make a theoretical example: if you write a political article, and I 
>> decide to translate it in
>> italian, making some changes, and marking it as "modified", what your
>> "gain" is?
>> It becomes MY representation of YOUR view, so it doesn't help your
>> cause; who is interested in your opinion must read your version: this
>> means that my translation is useless and "dangerous", because who doesn't
>> check will never know how my modified version is different from the
>> original article, and could think (despite the mark) that our visions
>> are "similar".

Aaron Wolf
music teacher,

reply via email to

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