[cc-licenses] Creative Commons & Copyleft question?

drew Roberts zotz at 100jamz.com
Wed Aug 30 07:51:45 EDT 2006


On Tuesday 29 August 2006 11:45 am, Greg London wrote:
> On 8/28/06, Charles Iliya Krempeaux <supercanadian at gmail.com> wrote:
> > And, yes I know you guys have put alot of work into defining the what you
> > call a "derivative work" and what you call a "aggregate" in legalese. 
> > But it seems like a choice you guys made.
>
> It's based on what the law says, not what we say.
> Aggregate and collective works are legal concepts,
> not just some choice we made.
>
> > To me, all "aggregates" are "derivative works".
>
> And the law says otherwise.

Yes, but could we not make the stipulation that they must be treated as 
derivative works if the other party wants a license without negotiation? Sort 
of what is done with the sync rights with songs and videos/movies? (Not 
saying we should or shouldn't just asking if we can or can't.)
>
> > The GNU LGPL puts more limits (than the
> > GNU GPL) on how copyleft can propagate through derivative works.  In
> > other words, with the GNU LGPL, there are less types of "derivations"
> > that would spread the copyleft (than the GNU GPL).
>
> You have that entirely backwards.
> GPL is more restrictive than LGPL.

I think if you parse that carefully you will see that he says that the LGPL 
puts more limits on copyleft. The limits he is talking about would make it a 
"weaker copyleft" which is just what you seem to be saying as well. I think 
you are both in agreement on this point. (Once definitions are dealt with.)
>
> LGPL will allow you to take a copyleft LIBRARY
> and link it with proprietary libraries.
>
> GPL says that anything you link with must be GPL.
> If you link your GPL library with any other code, the
> result must be GPL'ed code.
>
> (In both cases, this assumes you distribute the resulting code.)
>
> > Correct me if I'm mistaken.  But I was under the impression that CC-SA
> > does NOT propagate, and thus is NOT copyleft.
>
> Er... What?
> The very point of ShareAlike is that it is a copyleft license
> that propagates. All derivatives of a CC-SA work must also
> be CC-SA.
>
> > My interest is NOT in any "gift economy" experiments.
> >
> > I'm interested in liberty.
>
> What do you think a copyleft license does other than to
> guarantee the liberty of the work? That's its only purpose.
>
> > I believe that the enforcement of copyright law is immoral.
>
> Well, you're wrong. Copyright and copyleft both solve the
> same problem in different ways. The problem is getting
> people to create new works.

I am sure not everyone agrees that this is the problem.
>
> Copyright solves the problem of encouraging individuals
> to risk creating new works by offering them the possibility
> of a monetary reward.
>
> Copyleft solves the problem by allowing communities
> to create works together, spreading out the risk to the
> point where individuals can make minor contributions
> and still forward the project, and creating a work that
> is the reward itself.
>
> Copyright may have terms set too long and rights
> from the DMCA may be too powerful, but the concept
> of copyright is quite legitmate.
>
> You might as well be arguing that private land ownership
> is immoral.
>
> > I see copyleft as making the world as if copyright law did NOT
> > exist.   As a way of kind of opt'ing out of copyright law.
>
> Copyleft licenses only exist inside of copyright law.
>
> And they both solve the same problem in different ways.
> And depending on the project, one way often works
> better than the other. Not because of morality, but
> because of the terrain of the proposed project.
>
> > I see the spreading of copyleft (in the world we live in) to be a
> > preferred, because it undoes what copyright law forces upon me and
> > others.
>
> Copyright doesn't force anything on you.
> If Disney creates a work under copyright,
> you aren't forced to do anything with that work.
>
> You can boycott the work if you wish.
> But if you wish to get a copy of the work,
> you have to follow the law.
>
> If you don't like that, then don't buy it.
> If you don't like that, then make your own
> works and give them away for free.
>
> But no one is forcing you to buy those works
> or to engage in the copyright world.
>
> > Again, I'm NOT interested in any kind of "gift economy" experiment.  (As
> > I explained above) I'm interested in liberty.
>
> Right, because if I wrote a book and sold it All Rights Reserved,
> that would -so- impinge on your precious liberty.
>
> > The "Free Software' camp is interested in liberty.  From the "Free
> > Software" camp's point-of-view, if it all leads to better software
> > development practices, then great... but that's besides the point.  They
> > do it all for reasons of liberty.  That's it.
>
> Political motivations. Sure. You're going to put Microsoft out of business
> because Microsoft is immoral to use copyright? You're going to put
> Disney out of business because Disney is immoral to use copyright?
> Let me know when you've accomplished that goal.
>
> Until that point, your political motivations are irrelvant from any
> functional point of view. Your "Free" camp operates
> -exactly the same- as any other Gift Economy "experiment".
> People make individual contributions to a project under a
> copyleft license which protects the work as it progresses.
>
> You're not special simply because you wave a flag of "liberty"
> while you're doing it. People contribute to FLOSS projects for
> a multitude of reasons. Your reason isn't special or any
> better than anyone else's reason.
>
> > I want copyleft licenses that help me undo what
> > copyright forces on me and others.
>
> Did Disney force you to watch Mickey Mouse
> when you were young? Did the RIAA burst into
> your house and force you to buy their records?
>
> Unless anyone actually forced you to pay for
> copyright works, then you're simply using
> highly charged emotional language in spite
> of reality.
>
> > Also, I believe that one can still (have a working
> > business model and) make a living in such a
> > situation.  (The "Free Software" world already has many
> > success stories.)
>
> so, you're pursuit of liberty is achieved when you
> can make  money.
>
> > I think we just need a Creative Commons Copyleft license with a bit
> > stronger terms for propagating the copyleft.  (A model similar to the duo
> > of the GNU GPL and the GNU LGPL seems good.)
>
> Except neither GPL nor LGPL says the license must propagate
> to collective works. Tell you what, you talk to the
> folks at GNU. They're real big on liberty. And you tell
> them they need to change teh GPL so that it propagates
> through collective works. When they agree to that,
> lemme know, and we can talk some more.

all the best,

drew
-- 
(da idea man)
http://www.ourmedia.org/node/145261
Record a song and you might win $1,000.00
http://www.ourmedia.org/user/17145



More information about the cc-licenses mailing list