Conversation
Notices
-
The unfortunately predominant misconception of free software is that it operates by coercing disclosure of source - not restoring liberty.
about a year ago from web- Jesús E. Franco Martínez likes this.
-
@crosbie predominant? My guess is most only dimly aware http://gondwanaland.com/mlog/2012/01/31/copyleft-regulates/
-
@crosbie yeah. that's built on the OSS-promoted mistaking of copyleft for the whole of free software
-
Other misconceptions not so predominant as coerced disclosure: b) GPL is viral/contagious c) BSD is freer d) Is all voluntary/unpaid/amateur
-
@crosbie I'd say all those a lot more predominant; also b and c depend on meaning of viral and free, calling 'em misconceptions uncharitable
-
@mlinksva Anyone who defines 'free' to include "Freedom to assert #copyright on my derivatives" doesn't understand freedom.
Bob Jonkman likes this. -
Your freedom to license your derivs requires your right to #copyright your derivs. You apparently do not understand what you are doing.
-
Using 'free' as a catachresis for power and 'right' for privilege is standard operating procedure for #copyright devotees.
Mike Linksvayer likes this. -
A privilege is the grant of power - in the case of #copyright, at the expense of an abridgement of liberty - annulling of our right to copy.
-
A license restores liberty suspended by #copyright. A #copyleft license attempts to restore all liberties to as many as possible.
-
One does not have 'freedom' to licence more or less liberty - one has POWER - from the privilege of #copyright. Power to be relinquished!
-
A license does nothing to restore liberty; it is for control. Not making a judgment call, just stating the unutterably obvious.
-
The only thing a license CAN do is restore/modulate liberty suspended by #copyright. It can provide the holder with no additional power.
-
#WOTD: catachresis: A misuse of a word; an application of a term to something which it does not properly denote.
Amgine likes this. -
wasnt the whole purpose of copyright to allow artists, musicians, and authors to make a living? NOT to grand publishers…
-
@coyo @sethfulton nope, © has no intelligent design nor beneficent origin. merely result of grabbing for $ and control.
Crosbie Fitch likes this. -
is that so? copyright had no beneficent origin? so copyright should be completely abolished?
-
http://parlementum.net/url/866166 says here it was about unregulated printing press copying.
-
@sethfulton It is not true that "historically, copyright was primarily about verifying the authenticity of the original work's author" ...
-
@laurelrusswurm I wish I could have you talk with #photographyStudent #SonTwo. His "media law" prof convinced him otherwise.
-
@lnxwalt280 Chances are good that his media law teacher has never made a living as a creator. The sad truth is, most creators don't.
-
@lnxwalt280 Media distributors, lawyers and collectives make a living off !copyright. Most creators don't. (A few stars do.)
-
Countering plagiarism and misrepresentation were arguments (qv Defoe) that helped effectively restore the Stationers' Company's monopolies.
-
State & corporations prioritise proprietary vs moral interests such that #copyright law dwarfs law protecting authors' moral rights.
-
I often recommend http://identi.ca/url/2486922 for #copyright reading, e.g. in http://identi.ca/url/69120860
-
@mlinksva only if you can name any meaning of viral in which the GPL regulates derivative works in ways regular proprietary licenses don't
-
@crosbie yup. that's power over others, not one's own freedom
-
@lxoliva I conjecture analogous and similarly semi-true pejorative is poison, ie, copyleft : proprietary :: viral : poisonous
-
♻ @crosbie: A license restores liberty suspended by #copyright. A #copyleft license attempts to restore all liberties to as many as possible
-
@mlinksva how's that a better answer to my question than, say, copyleft : proprietary :: banana : apple (inc?) ? :-)
-
@mlinksva seriously, what's viral about passing features on to descendants?
-
is it becoming time for a copyleft pact where we restore liberties only to fellow liberty restorers instead?
-
@crosbie I think "restore liberties" implies they have violated copyleft license, so "liberty to all" obviously doesn't apply.
-
@crosbie in the long term yes, but in the short term it does so by "denying liberty" to those who do not follow the terms.
-
@kevingranade "Restore liberties" is a contraction of "Restore liberties suspended by #copyright & #patent" It's what #copyleft licenses do.
-
If you wink right, it would not be you denying them liberty. It would be copyright law and themselves.
-
@crosbie strategically yes, but tactically (case-by-case), copyleft cannot "restore liberties to everyone", because it then has no power.
-
@kevingranade #Copyleft licenses 'deny liberty' only if you include within your definition of liberty: "The 'liberty' to exploit #copyright"
-
@crosbie I roughly equate "liberties" here to the FSF 4 freedoms, and the revocation of the copyleft license denies 2 of the 4 freedoms.
-
@kevingranade #Copyleft licenses do not restore liberty to everyone, no, but to recipients of the #copyright licensed work & derivatives.
-
@crosbie that was my point, likely we're in agreement but communication was strained.
-
@kevingranade That #copyright may be revoked is not germane to understanding the essence of #copyleft and its restoration of liberty.
-
@kevingranade The power to prohibit copies of a work is not a liberty, so #copyleft by using #copyright to deny this power denies no liberty
-
@crosbie I disagree, to some the means used is unpalatable, and that needs to be acknowledged.
-
@kevingranade Abolition is unpalatable to #copyright supporters (& misguided #copyleft /free software folk). About ethics, not palatability.
-
@lxoliva exactly. heredity also an imperfect metaphor. captures forking well, linking poorly.
-
@lxoliva virus and poison both capture fear/hatred/envy. I was poking fun at your question.
-
@coyo yes. they don't strictly follow from one to the other, but yes and yes.
Crosbie Fitch likes this. -
@mlinksva huh? linking is just one mechanism by which the offspring (derivative/combined) inherits a parent's features
-
@mlinksva I see. poisonous non-free may be an exaggeration, but viral copyleft is nonsense: no contagion by mere contact
-
@mlinksva proprietary licenses may place restrictions on unrelated aggregated works (viral contagion); FS licenses only affect descendants
-
this is a warped view imho. a copyrighted aggregate/compilation relates previously unrelated works. blame copyright law if you must.
-
in any case, there is no restriction on those related or unrelated works themselves, just on the aggregate/compilation.
-
this matter concerns me because this is how I want the next BY-SA to function in the case of "containers" that get copyright protection.
-
Call it the difference between creative aggregation and mere aggregation. Leave mere aggregation alone.
-
Require creative aggregates to only contain Free children if any of the children are licensed with a copyleft Free license.
-
@zotz point is FS licenses can't be viral, for they don't constrain aggregation, whereas proprietary licenses do
-
@zotz what's warped about it? can you name any case of copyleft constraining non-descendants?
-
@zotz protection from what? :-) from what you write, I guess we're talking past each other :-(
-
I will not dispute that.
-
Consider a BY-SA photograph used in a book and a BY-SA recorded used in a movie. The movie must be BY-SA, the book can be ARR. This is a bug
-
@zotz how do you tell creative from non-creative (mechanical?) aggregation? please elaborate on the latter, I can't grasp it
-
@zotz in what situations can the book escape the picture's SA condition?
-
The fix is to require Free siblings when a BY-SA work is used in a compilation that gets a copyright. Take it that the text is written first
-
@zotz and why couldn't they apply to the movie soundtrack?
-
@zotz say, “this DVD contains all pictures taken by students of a class, in a movie whose soundtrack is songs they composed”
-
@zotz does/should SA licensing of picture or song demand the aggregate DVD image to be under SA as well?
-
I think because of sync rights. see 1.a http://ur1.ca/5gs8i
-
Seemingly all cases, the text is not a derivative of the photos.
-
copyright law can tell. it gives a copyright to one and not the other.
-
protection from having my BY-SA (copyleft) photos used in ARR books, magazines, newspapers, and the like.
-
and then having the copyright on the collection or my work's siblings used against me.
-
@zotz it doesn't matter if it's a derivative, you still have to satisfy © to incorporate a work in a new work, how does CC change that?
-
if the movie is a work per copyright and thus gets an automatic copyright, yes. the movie should be BY-SA & all parts should be Free
-
@zotz I guess one could make a case of derivation sometimes, but I'm inclined to agree special treatment of sync rights is a bug
-
@zotz perhaps sync rights could be extended from time-only to time-and-space, so as to cover text that relates with pictures
-
Can you restate the question in other words? I don't get your issue?
-
derivation is not the only interesting case for non-code. other uses in copyrighted works can break the copyleft ethos.
drew Roberts likes this. -
I think my statement of the fix is simple enough and covers what is needed.
-
did I post this as a reply to the wrong parent? I think so.
-
told it doesn't but: if the movie is a work per © and thus gets an automatic ©, yes. the movie should be BY-SA & all parts should be Free
-
@zotz are they analogous to tivoization? i.e., blocking enjoyment of freedoms through technical rather than legal means
-
@zotz You say a CC-SA picture could be incrporated in an ARR book, what mechanism would allow this?
-
@kevingranade Ah, you mean by giving attribution, the picture could be incorporated, then used to prevent you from using it similarly?
-
for time-and-space sync rights, perhaps it would make sense to name them “linking rights”, analogous to software linking
-
http://ur1.ca/5gs8i see 1.a 1.b 3.a 3.b 4.a 4.b collections don't have to be BY-SA adaptations do.
-
that's how it has been explained to me on the cc mailing lists and elsewhere iirc.
-
hmm, naming so might get confusing, but it might help us to *think* of the relationship as linking
-
@zotz I follow you, and agree, I've heard about it elsewhere but didn't follow your explanation at first.
-
as in, there's a link between the photo and the text that makes the result a single combined work, rather than mere aggregation
-
see On The Need For A Stronger Copyleft For BY-SA 4.x - http://ur1.ca/7xfwz
-
It is simply inclusion or use in another copyrighted work. Isn't it?
-
@sethfulton Thanks for the Forbes article [http://www.ur1.ca/927nh]; it's a great illustration of prejudice dictating conclusion !copyright
-
@zotz well, not really, IIUC. the whole work is a combined work of e.g. main program and library, or main text and picture
-
@zotz so, yeah, I guess you can think of it as “inclusion or use”, but I'm trying to tell it from mere aggregation = use without a link
-
@zotz thanks, I'll re-read it when I'm not so sleep deprived as I am now, but AFAICT the bug is in the permissive terms for collections
-
you can tell it because "mere aggregations" do not qualify for copyright protection whereas "creative aggregations" do.
-
except mere aggregations do not qualify as works under copyright law from what I am told. no creativity and hence no copyright.
-
if this brings pressure to raise the bar on creativity in collections etc. for them to get copyright protection, so be it.
-
@lxoliva for a particular definition of descendant. but I'm done arguing for charitable treatment of enemy metaphors for now. ^_^
All Identi.ca content and data are available under the