Open licenses session: Difference between revisions

From XPUB & Lens-Based wiki
No edit summary
Tag: Reverted
(Undo revision 260307 by Manetta (talk))
Tag: Undo
Line 1: Line 1:
==copyright==
<blockquote>
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.
</blockquote>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright
==4 free software freedoms==
<blockquote>
- The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0).<br>
- 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.<br>
- The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help others (freedom 2).<br>
- 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.
</blockquote>
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html
==free culture==
==free culture==


https://sound.constantvzw.org/Authors-of-the-future/recordings/5_Aymeric_Mansoux_Free_Only_if.wav
<blockquote>
 
In this first part, I counter two points that have been taken for granted
See also for a deeeep dive: https://www.bleu255.com/~aymeric/dump/aymeric_mansoux-sandbox_culture_phd_thesis-2017.pdf
with free and open source software production, and the subsequent rise
of free culture.  


===xerox mark===
The first point is the idea that free and open source software is primarily the opposition to closed source, proprietary, software
and standards, and this for reasons that can be articulated on the grounds
of either ethics or economics.


[[File:A-Xerox-Mark-Radical-Software-1973.png|500px]]
The second point is the notion that all the
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.  


http://www.radicalsoftware.org/e/volume1nr3.html
These two elements have led to misunderstandings, or to be more
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.  


===copy it right===
In particular, I want to falsify first the notion
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.


[[File:COPY-IT-RIGHT-3195163650 73d1e7ed3e o.jpg|500px]]
Each of
these arguments will be expressed in two chapters: Chapter 1 Paradigm
Maintenance and User Freedom, and Chapter 2 In Search of Pluralism.
</blockquote>


[[File:COPY IT RIGHT-morton distributionreligion intro.jpg|500px]]
Aymeric Mansoux, Sandbox Culture, A Study of the Application of Free and Open Source Software Licensing Ideas to Art and Cultural Production


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.  
https://www.bleu255.com/~aymeric/dump/aymeric_mansoux-sandbox_culture_phd_thesis-2017.pdf#page=40


===GPL===
OR


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


https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html
==the rising ethical storm==


===copyleft===
{{#Widget:Video|mp4=https://archive.org/download/copyleftconf2020-ehmke/Salle%20des%20Arches%201340%20-%20The%20Rising%20Ethical%20Storm%20In%20Open%20Source.mp4|style=width:700px;}}


the "viral" element used in some of the open licenses
Coraline Ada Ehmke on ethical open licenses, presented at CopyleftConf 2020.


===Creative Commons===
https://archive.org/details/copyleftconf2020-ehmke


https://creativecommons.org/
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/

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

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 of free culture.

The first point is the idea that free and open source software is primarily the opposition to closed source, proprietary, software 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 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 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 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 these arguments will be expressed in two chapters: Chapter 1 Paradigm Maintenance and User Freedom, and Chapter 2 In Search of Pluralism.

Aymeric Mansoux, Sandbox Culture, A Study of the Application of Free and Open Source Software Licensing Ideas to Art and Cultural Production

https://www.bleu255.com/~aymeric/dump/aymeric_mansoux-sandbox_culture_phd_thesis-2017.pdf#page=40

OR

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

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/