[cc-community] Open Hardware Licence
Patrick Godeau
patrick.godeau at free.fr
Fri May 8 08:01:13 EDT 2009
Hi all,
Le 08/05/2009 00:09, Rob Myers a écrit :
>
> Patrick Godeau wrote:
>> Free licenses, specifically copyleft licenses, come with restrictions.
>> For example, GPL restricts you from distributing a program without
>> giving your source code modifications. This obligation is necessary to
>> preserve the freedom of everyone to have access to the source code.
>
> But copyleft limits only the restrictions you may impose.
>
> Philosophically speaking, copyleft is an example of the absolute minimum
> of coercion required to prevent further coercion.
I agree.
> The freedom that copyleft protects is to use software. Access to source
> code may be a pre-requisite for this, but it is not an end in itself.
More precisely, the GPL protects 4 freedoms: to use, to study, to
distribute, and to modify the program. Access to source code is only
required to study and modify.
>> The IANG license restricts you from dictating other people's work. This
>> is to preserve the freedom of every contributor to have a say in her work.
>>
>> This does not mean that every contributor must agree with all other
>> contributors on every little change. It only means that contributors who
>> share a work should also share the control of this work.
>
> The "freedom" to control use of a work is not freedom, it is control.
Words can have two meanings. (By the way, English is not my native
language, so please forgive my poor wording ;-) A "work" may be a labor,
or the product resulting from this labor. IANG does not restrict in any
way the mere *use* of a work as a product. Also, "control" can mean
either coercion or freedom. When you control your own labor, it's
freedom. When you control other people's labor, it's coercion.
>> IANG also addresses rights not covered by CC licenses, like the right to
>> access the accounting of commercial distributions.
>
> From the point of view of the freedom to use copyrighted works, that is
> not a right, it is a privilege.
One could also argue that access to source code is a privilege, since
it's not required to run or distribute the program.
> Economic reform is a separate issue from freedom of use/speech. It *is*
> a very important issue, but a separate one.
The freedom to use a product may depend on the economic ability to
acquire it. Take for example patented medications, which is a domain
where "intellectual property" is responsible for many deaths.
CC "noncommercial" licenses also address the economic issue, in a way.
But in my opinion, both "commercial" and NC licenses address it by
restricting the freedom of users. Commercial licenses give economic
power to distributors, while NC licenses reserve this power for authors.
The IANG approach is different, by giving economic management to those
who contribute to the financing.
Regards,
--
Patrick
More information about the cc-community
mailing list