01.18.10
Posted in freedom at 11:59 am by Bani
In a recent article, Gennady Stolyarov II explains how writers can prosper without intellectual property.
The idea behind the copyright law is that authors need patrimonial rights over their creations in order to incentive their work. Some people argue that it wouldn’t be possible to earn a living and create art if it were not for the intellectual proterty laws.
Gennady Stolyarov II provides an historical perspective on how artists used to prosper before the copyright law and presents several ideas for the writers of tomorrow to make money even if the protection of their work cease to exist. The ideas range from a new way to negotiate with traditional publishers to patronage and online advertisements.
As the article ends, we are left to reflect upon the necessity of copyright:
It is never necessary to cling to a single legal mechanism or institution as the sole path for any given peaceful and productive human activity. Human beings are much more inventive and resilient than the defenders of copyright would suggest.
Permalink
09.14.09
Posted in freedom at 1:53 pm by Bani
From:
Ubersoft, under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 License
Permalink
09.09.09
Posted in freedom at 2:11 pm by Bani
People believe the laws should reflect the interests of the society. They argue that copyright laws is important to incentive private parties to produce new content so that in the long term everyone will have access to a richer culture.
Maybe that was the original intent, but today it mostly serves to protect the distributor assets. Writers and musicians sell their rights to the publisher, who profit from the exclusive rights to distribute the content. Only a small percentage of the profit goes back to the artist in the form of royalties.
For the sake of the argument, let’s suppose the artist was able to earn his/her living only from the royalties received, which is not true for most cases. Is it fair that the single owner of the rights profit from it for such an extended time as 70 years after the author’s death, when other people could be creating more interesting stuff based on this work to entertain the rest of us?
Super protective laws will only incentive the mediocrity. We have to settle for “good enough”, when we could have access to great, improved versions of a work.
Permalink
Posted in freedom at 10:38 am by Bani
Permalink
Posted in freedom at 10:29 am by Bani
Permalink
09.19.08
Posted in freedom at 10:26 am by Bani
This saturday, September 20th, is Softare Freedom Day!
Permalink
09.03.08
Posted in freedom at 6:46 pm by Bani
September 24th will be the World Day Against Software Patents.
Although the day celebrates an achievement that has been made at the European Parliament five years ago, there is still a lot to be done. Visit http://stopsoftwarepatents.org/ to learn what else can me accomplished and how you can help.
Permalink
08.21.08
Posted in freedom at 11:13 pm by Bani
Found this license today. It is cute.
This work ‘as-is’ we provide.
No warranty express or implied.
We’ve done our best,
to debug and test.
Liability for damages denied.
Permission is granted hereby,
to copy, share, and modify.
Use as is fit,
free or for profit.
These rights, on this notice, rely.
(c) 2005 Alexander E Genaud
Permalink
04.14.08
Posted in freedom at 7:55 pm by Bani
Permissive licenses like the BSD and MIT impose few restrictions on the use and redistribution of the software. Created in an academic environment, they are based on the principles of publishing and reusing ideas with as much freedom as possible.
The absence of stronger conditions for the distribution of software under these licenses implies limitations for its use with other licenses that work with the copyleft principle, such as the GNU GPL, which demands that any derived work that is to be distributed must be under the same terms of the original license, as it says in section 2 of GPLv2:
You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License
Still, this restriction applies only to uses that are protected under the copyright law. As the GPL says, you don’t have to accept the license, but nothing else grants you permission to do what otherwise would be prohibited by law. The main exclusive rights under the copyright law are to copy, to distribute and to create derivative works. There are other restrictions that are applied through software patents, but these aren’t valid in many countries (including mine) so I won’t discuss it any further.
Therefore, it is worth noting that the simplest form of use of software is free under any circumstances. This means that using an operating system or an integrated development environment licensed user the GPL when you are developing your software doesn’t force you to license it under GPL terms.
Other uses, such as distribution, contributions, derivative works and use through linkage, may be subject to specific conditions. Most of the licenses aren’t very precise about the meaning of each of these terms, and so the involved parties are left with an interpretation problem. Even considering that the Free Software Foundation explains in other documents what was their intention when they wrote the license, these clarifications don’t have any legal value unless we are considering a piece of software owned by them. As a result, because of the ambiguities in the text of the licenses, it is often not clear what would be the result in case of litigation.
Nevertheless, it’s valid to try to understand the position of the FSF, to serve as a parameter in the discussion about licensing a software under a permissive license when it is related to another software that uses the GPL or LGPL . Next, let’s consider a few cases:
- Modification of the source code to be distributed as a derivative work or to be returned as a contribution to the original work: it must be released under a compatible license. In the case of LGPL, the new work must be distributed as a library;
- Creation of a new work that uses a library licensed under the GPL: there is high controversy around this use, because some people consider that when a program uses a library a collective work is being created, composed by the program plus the library, instead of saying that the program is a derivative work of the library. On the other hand, according to the FSF, in this case the “viral clause” must be applied, because the program as it is actually run includes the library (see FAQ). However, the GPL says that if there are identifiable sections of that work that are not derived from the program protected under the license, and if the sections can be reasonably considered independent, then they are not required to be licensed under the GPL when distributed as separate works. In fact, many developers try to escape from the GPL by distributing their code without the required libraries. But this may not work because one could argue that the code isn’t really independent from the GPL licensed work. Moreover, if the work is distributed as part of a whole based on the work licensed under the GPL, then the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of the GPL, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part of it;
- Creation of a new work that calls functions from a software licensed under the GPL, but that doesn’t need it to be compiled or to run: there is even more controversy in this case, but in general it is subject to the same restrictions, that is, if we consider the more conservative approach, it is necessary to license the work under the GPL terms;
- Creation of a new work that uses a library licensed under the LGPL: in this case, since the LGPL is a variation from the GPL used precisely to allow the use of libraries by software that doesn’t comply with the GPL, it is allowed to license the work under other terms, such as the BSD license.
To conclude, we should also note that the BSD license itself isn’t perfectly clear about what the licensee is allowed to do either, since the terms “redistribution and use” and “with or without modification” can’t be mapped directly to the exclusive rights mentioned under the copyright laws. It is implicit that all the rights are being given, but other licenses, such as the MIT license, are more explicit about such things.
Permalink
