Follow

copyright (copyleft) 

I've always felt like was authoritarian in that it took away "freedoms", but really it only prevents the "freedom" to use intellectual property to commit violence against:

0. Those who run the program as they wish, for any purpose.

1. Those who study how the program works, and change it so it does their computing as they wish.

2. Those who redistribute copies so they can help their neighbor.

3. Those who distribute copies of your modified versions to others.

Β· Β· 0 Β· 4 Β· 4

copyright (copyleft) 

Permissive licenses are tactically similar to non-violence, non-racism, etc., in that you aren't an active participant in copyright.

Copyleft is the radical notion that in addition to being non-violent, you should also lock up your weapons so they can't be used by others who *are* violent.

Being non-copyright is a good start, but at this point it seems like if you're anti-copyright that you should at least be using copyleft to protect your work (and maybe even copyfarleft).

copyright (copyleft) 

Just to clarify: permissive (non-copyright) licenses can be trivially weaponized as a tool to assert copyright.

If you can stomach my [gross] exaggeration, leaving a loaded gun on the sidewalk is non-violent in that you aren't an active participant in any violence.

It's inconvenient, but we have a responsibility to make sure that people aren't hurt by the products that we build, maintain, and distribute.

I think I need to change some licenses around.

Talk me out of it?

copyright (copyleft) 

@mattcropp

Marvel: "Avengers Infinity War is the most ambitious crossover event in history."

me: "A double spooking the world, the double of abstraction"

MARX x ENGELS x STIRNER

On the other hand, this basically broke my brain. Thank you.

copyright (copyleft) 

@christianbundy Wark's framework is a little challenging to grok, but it has really helped me make sense of a lot of the dynamics surrounding stuff, particularly the idea of .

Very worth digging through. :P

copyright (copyleft) 

@mattcropp Can you recommend a good place to start, or was that link a pretty solid entry point?

copyright (copyleft) 

@christianbundy I don't think licenses can be explicitly good or bad in and of themselves but it serves as an strong indicator about whether or not you should trust who wrote it.

copyright (copyleft) 

@thufir Can you unpack that a bit more? I'm not sure I fully get what you mean yet.

copyright (copyleft) 

@christianbundy *by "it" I meant the software with the license

copyright (copyleft) 

@christianbundy Ideally we would all just be able to freely share information and not give a fuck about all this legal bullshit but in the meantime stick with copyleft to protect yourself as a user and others as a developer from all of the big corporate assholes, basically.

>Talk me out of it?

@christianbundy Nope! πŸ˜ƒ Copyright and intellectual property are handbrakes on human progress and equality. Copyleft is a way to fight back and preserve the freedom of users.

@christianbundy That said, I don't have a good idea about how to preserve the freedom of users running software on a remote server.

Running your own servers and open protocols for content seems to be as close as we can get, which seems to be avoiding the problem, in a way...

@blakehaswell Isn't that the point of the AGPL?

gnu.org/licenses/why-affero-gp

I'm much more interested in local computing ( > IMO), but unfortunately we have to deal with the real world -- and that means *most people* are doing their computing remotely.

We've got a lot of work to do.

@christianbundy @blakehaswell That is it's intention, and it does go most of the way.

But as long as you're relying on others to run the software for you, you can't verify what version of that software they're running yourself, and you'd have to convince them to run any modifications you might make.

So yes, there's legal tools to deal with this case, but it's still better to run the software yourself.

@alcinnz

@christianbundy @blakehaswell
we have bee trying to find out why google hates AGPL... any hints? or easy explanation? #fuckoffgoogle

@ajeremias @christianbundy @blakehaswell

Well, with the GPL if you deliver an executable file to someone they have the demand the source code for it. So Microsoft used to hate that it might limit their ability to withhold that source code in the executable files they sell.

The AGPL extends that right to anyone using an Internet service powered by that software. Google hates it because it might limit their ability to withhold the source code for their web services they litter with ads.

@christianbundy I really need to check out Scuttlebutt don't I? πŸ€”

Thanks for the link to AGPL, I wasn't aware of that licence.

copyright (copyleft) 

@christianbundy you're talking about Evil Corp. taking some MIT software and relicensing it under some proprietary license?

I don't think I can talk you out of copyleft software license like GPL, but the cc licenses which are anything more than cc-sa pose unnecessary barriers: requiring attribution, prohibiting sale or derivation are undesirable restrictions IMO

copyright (copyleft) 

@douginamug I'm with you. Before I understood that that the GPL prevents further use of copyright, I took the MIT/ISC license and removed all unnecessary restrictions (opensource.org/licenses/FPL-1.), so I'm *very* sympathetic to that way of thinking.

What do you think about the FSF's use of CC Attribution + No Derivatives for their opinion pieces?

copyright (copyleft) 

@christianbundy ooft, I guess it doesn't have too many real world consequences compared to an OS kernel. That said, I'm really not into 'no derivatives'. Do you know why they chose it? Bear in mind that cc-nd on a piece of text doesn't prevent quoting.

copyright (copyleft) 

@douginamug I'm sure there's a resource where they go into [excruciating] detail, but from memory it's because modifying someone's opinion is fraudulent or something (because they presumably meant what they said -- not what you think they said).

They [supposedly] use this to quell bad translations, as *all* translations are illegal but as long as your translation doesn't suck they leave you alone.

Personally, I hate the idea of always-impending copyright bullshit.

copyright (copyleft) 

@christianbundy the analogy doesn't really work as both types of license support freedom 0: the freedom to run the program for any purpose, but I kind of get where you are coming from though. Worth remembering though that copyleft license conditions are normally triggered on distribution of software, not use.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
social.coop

A Fediverse instance for people interested in cooperative and collective projects.