[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: Wed, 27 May 2015 08:01:55 -0700
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0

On 05/27/2015 07:48 AM, Yoni Rabkin wrote:
>  choosing to make personal
> opinions immutable 

That's not what ND does. ND stops other people from doing creative
things that draw upon your work. Your personal opinions are yours alone
regardless of any of this. Nobody else can change them.

> I have yet to see a practical discussion about a specific
> one of those pieces, a different license, and what the community would
> gain (outside of the general principles and the general argument, which
> has been revisited many times over thus far.)

Then you haven't been reading. One of the most valuable and important
derivative works already made of Richard's stuff is a video that cuts
out longer pauses so his speech is a better and shorter thing to view.
That's a violation of ND.

Another thing mentioned was change of medium, such as someone using
Richard's text unchanged in a video about software freedom.

Emphasis has been made about translations.


Anyway, ND is an anti-Wikipedia and ant-commons license. It's frankly
*impossible* for Richard to both keep ND terms and *grant* someone
permission to use his writing in a very respectful, completely accurate
way when mixed with CC-BY-SA material. For example, I might take your
blog writings, Richard's writings, and some wonderful CC-BY-SA artwork
and music and create a video promoting software freedom. Well, that's
illegal. Why? Maybe Richard thinks my use of his *unaltered* words is
perfectly fineā€¦ but I *have* to license my video as CC-BY-SA because
that is the SA part of respecting everyone else's contributions to the

I cannot make a video that says "This is CC-BY-SA, except for that text,
that stuff is ND, which means if you make a derivative of this video,
you can't include that text without Richard's permission" because that
would violate the terms from the musician whose music is being played in
the background.

This incompatibility means that even derivatives that authors *like*
can't happen.

There's a ton of compelling arguments about why ND is wrong, and I've
posted links to other articles and resources about this.

Nobody defending ND has actually addressed any of these points or made
any substantive arguments actually showing why ND helps anything. I'd be
happy to discuss or address those points if they exist.

reply via email to

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