Open licenses session: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 20:38, 4 March 2024

copyright

A copyright is a type of intellectual property that gives the creator of an original work, or another right holder, the exclusive and legally secured right to copy, distribute, adapt, display, and perform a creative work, usually for a limited time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright

4 free software freedoms

- The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0).
- The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
- The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help others (freedom 2).
- The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html

free culture

https://sound.constantvzw.org/Authors-of-the-future/recordings/5_Aymeric_Mansoux_Free_Only_if.wav

xerox mark

http://www.radicalsoftware.org/e/volume1nr3.html

copy it right

Morton developed an approach he called COPY-IT-RIGHT, an anti-copyright approach to making and freely sharing Media art. The Distribution Religion and Morton’s individual and collaborative Media art works were released under his COPY-IT-RIGHT license. COPY-IT-RIGHT encouraged people to make faithful copies, caring for and distributing the work as widely as possible.

GPL

GNU General Public License

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html

copyleft

the "viral" element used in some of the open licenses

Creative Commons

https://creativecommons.org/

the rising ethical storm

Coraline Ada Ehmke on ethical open licenses, presented at CopyleftConf 2020.

https://archive.org/details/copyleftconf2020-ehmke

The blog post that Ehmke refers to in her presentation by Bruce Perens, in which he critiques the Hippocratic License: https://perens.com/2019/09/23/sorry-ms-ehmke-the-hippocratic-license-cant-work/

@@ Line 18: / Line 18: @@
 https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html
+==free culture==
 ==free culture==
-<blockquote>
+https://sound.constantvzw.org/Authors-of-the-future/recordings/5_Aymeric_Mansoux_Free_Only_if.wav
-In this first part, I counter two points that have been taken for granted
-with free and open source software production, and the subsequent rise
+See also for a deeeep dive: https://www.bleu255.com/~aymeric/dump/aymeric_mansoux-sandbox_culture_phd_thesis-2017.pdf
-of free culture.
+===xerox mark===
+[[File:A-Xerox-Mark-Radical-Software-1973.png|500px]]
+http://www.radicalsoftware.org/e/volume1nr3.html
+===copy it right===
+[[File:COPY-IT-RIGHT-3195163650 73d1e7ed3e o.jpg|500px]]
-The first point is the idea that free and open source software is primarily the opposition to closed source, proprietary, software
+[[File:COPY IT RIGHT-morton distributionreligion intro.jpg|500px]]
-and standards, and this for reasons that can be articulated on the grounds
-of either ethics or economics.
-The second point is the notion that all the
+Morton developed an approach he called COPY-IT-RIGHT, an anti-copyright approach to making and freely sharing Media art. The Distribution Religion and Morton’s individual and collaborative Media art works were released under his COPY-IT-RIGHT license. COPY-IT-RIGHT encouraged people to make faithful copies, caring for and distributing the work as widely as possible.
-things derived from free and open source software are simple variations
-on the same theme, and are bound together in a common struggle with
-a shared intention or agenda, from which every participating group can
-benefit.
-These two elements have led to misunderstandings, or to be more
+===GPL===
-precise, have prevented an acknowledgement of the tension between different attempts to normalise and rationalise free culture and the richness
-of its practices and contexts.
-In particular, I want to falsify first the notion
+GNU General Public License
-of free and open source software as a paradigm shift, by showing another
-side of this revolutionary dimension in the fabrication of virtual communities which emulate endangered and speculative practices, and second,
-demonstrate that the culture of free and open things is a in fact a struggle,
-but not against an external hegemony, but a struggle within itself which
-is symptomatic of liberal democratic and post-political systems.
-Each of
+https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html
-these arguments will be expressed in two chapters: Chapter 1 Paradigm
-Maintenance and User Freedom, and Chapter 2 In Search of Pluralism.
-</blockquote>
-Aymeric Mansoux, Sandbox Culture, A Study of the Application of Free and Open Source Software Licensing Ideas to Art and Cultural Production
+===copyleft===
-https://www.bleu255.com/~aymeric/dump/aymeric_mansoux-sandbox_culture_phd_thesis-2017.pdf#page=40
+the "viral" element used in some of the open licenses
-OR
+===Creative Commons===
-https://sound.constantvzw.org/Authors-of-the-future/recordings/5_Aymeric_Mansoux_Free_Only_if.wav
+https://creativecommons.org/
 ==the rising ethical storm==