Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-uk - Re: [Cc-uk] Good Idea, Bad Implementation

cc-uk AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Cc-uk mailing list

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: rob AT robmyers.org
  • To: cc-uk AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [Cc-uk] Good Idea, Bad Implementation
  • Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 12:20:26 +0000

Quoting Tom Chance <tom AT acrewoods.net>:

Is it the 'invariant sections' clause of the FDL that makes this a problem for
you, or some other legal technicality?

Invariant sections are not a technicality in the minimising sense of the word.
:-)

The invariant sections clause means my work can be combined with immutable work
that I cannot then re-use. This breaks my copyleft intent and the copyleft
"social contract" (ie you can "cash out", or exploit work without return). It
also means my work can be modified to fit with and directly combined with work
that I cannot then do the same to (again breaking the "social contract" by
removing some forms of critique, discourse, and collaborative generation of
value).

Then there's the transparent form clause. No MP3s or DVDs can be converted from
BY-SA to FDL, but SVGs can.

And CC-US imposing this new clause on currently licenced work by trying to claim
it is part of an existing clause is a mis-use of power and a betrayal of trust &
responsibility.

If I want my work licenced FDL I will licence my work FDL.

They mention in their blog entry on this [1] that they "will be working with
as many representatives from the free culture movement as we can to build
this federation of free licenses".

Yes, the Free Art Licence people are looking to get involved I think.

If they managed to get the GNU FDL changed to state compatibility, would that be better?

If two licences are exactly the same then they are the same licence. :-) If FDL
and BY-SA have any meaningful differences, then an individual may have good
reason for choosing between them.

You know Stallman's position on misrepresentation of political speech. A
compatible FDL would be a new FDL, or an FDL with a "sticky bit" on no
invariant sections, which would amount to the same thing.

Just trying to think through how I might respond to this, and what we should
be aiming for on the long run. I'm certainly very concerned about license
incompatibility... copyright is complicated enough for ordinary people as it
is, without lots of incompatible licenses!

I agree with this wholeheartedly. But FDL was not intended for and is not suited
to copyleft cultural work. BY-SA is. Wikipedia envy is a terrible thing. :-/

- Rob.





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page