From Anarchopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

I like this default value. Sj 02:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Possible Licenses[edit]

Creative Commons: Attribution-Share Alike 3.0


Rescued link[edit]

I didn't see this anywhere and had to find it through my own history. It should be posted somewhere because it contains pertinent background info:

Added. --Milos Rancic 08:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Licensing: purity versus pragmatism[edit]

I find myself torn on this issue. If we want to remain pure anarchists, then of course we can't wield copyright law to our own advantage; we must release to the public domain. But why remain pure on this one count when we're not pure on so many others? We compromise with the enemies of anarchism all the time. For instance, I'm sure most of us are connected to the Internet via capitalist ISPs; but we are justified in this because we're using capitalism to undermine capitalism. And that's the entire point of copyleft licensing: using copyright to undermine copyright! In all candor, I feel less pure knowing that we're potentially contributing to capitalism by releasing to the public domain (where capitalists might capitalize on our work), than I would feel by releasing under a copyleft license like the GPL. Considering the realities of the situation, releasing to the public domain seems to be not only an empty expression of anarchist purity, but a self-destructive one; it is letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.

The entire concept of having policies and procedures on an anarchist project shows the basic hypocrisy about anarchism: it's not against government or order, just against government or order that it did not create. 20:09, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
It seems odd that anarchists are considering more restrictive licensing then Wikipedia? What is the point of contributing knowledge if people, regardless of there political persuasion can't capitalize on that knowledge.

A topical essay[edit]

Anyone interested in the licensing discussion should read this excellent, thought-provoking essay by Anna Nimus (reading time ~1 hr; I had to break the link to get past the spam filter):

This is a complicated issue. Here is a summary of the problem, as I see it:

  1. As anarchists, we want information to be free, so we feel compelled to release to the public domain;
  2. But we don't want to empower our enemies, so we feel compelled to use their own copyright law against them by releasing under a copyleft license.
  3. However, not all copyleft licenses are alike, so we feel compelled to use one with a non-commercial clause;
  4. But the more restrictive we become, the more we compromise on our principles.
  5. Moreover, by releasing under any license whatsoever, we affirm that which we oppose: the control of information.

So the complication is twofold: 1) can we justify using means which compromise our principles, for the sake of achieving ends which uphold them; 2) if yes, then does our desire to achieve those ends outweigh our desire to reject the very concept of the ownership of ideas. If not, then we're back where we started: we can only grind our teeth as our enemies capitalize on our efforts to spread information freely; we can only implore them not to exploit us for their own gain; we can only stand by and watch as our principles are violated, thereby facilitating their violation, and, in effect, compromising once again.

In short: We're damned if we license, and damned if we don't.

Public domain/Conservapedia copyright[edit]

A public domain release should be the new licensing terms, in my opinion. Next best choice is Conservapedia's copyright license, which is functionally identical to a public domain release. --Ksd5 20:00, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Clarification on PD in Europe[edit]

K2 contacted me on this issue and just to clarify for him and for others this issue. The most of continental Europe jurisdictions (AFAIK, except Netherlands) forbids realizing content in PD. The rationale behind this reasoning is that "the author is always holder of moral rights of his or her work". --Milos Rancic 20:48, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Anarchopedia licensing terms address that issue by stating inside of the "Default values": --Milos Rancic 20:48, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

If there is no licensing template on the article page (usually at the bottom), then you are able to use Anarchopedia content without restriction. In Anglo-Saxon jurisdictions this means that you are able to use Anarchopedia content as public domain content, while in the Continental jurisdictions you should treat the content as though published under an attribution-only license (one example of such a license is the Creative Commons Attribution License).
Even in such cases (in Anglo-Saxon jurisdictions) that you are not compelled by law to provide attribution, it is advisable to do so, so that the source of the information can be located if necessary. However, in such cases, you are left to your own discretion whether to follow this common practice or not.

-- as well as inside of the section "Contributing content to Anarchopedia".

Public domain / attribution-only (depending of jurisdiction). This is the Anarchopedia default. If you do not put any license template on the content you have contributed, then that content will be published under those conditions. Content licensed in this way is compatible with any other license.'

European jurisdictions are mentioned as "Continental jurisdictions". --Milos Rancic 20:48, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Those two statements address relatively clearly the issue related to using and contributing the content. Even it is not clear enough, it is not up to us to deal with that. All Anarchopedia contributors are contributed inside of the history of a particular page. Legally, this is related just to two occasions: (1) if someone contributes their material indirectly (let's say, someone says to some Anarchopedia contributor that their materials are under PD although that person is from some continental jurisdiction ~ from Europe) or (2) if someone from Europe uses materials from Anarchopedia without giving proper contribution to some author who gave materials under the default licensing values. In both cases it is not related to Anarchopedia, but to a particular relationship between the author and the legal system (the first case) and distributor and the legal system (the second case). --Milos Rancic 20:48, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Even some public prosecutor (because no one would be privately interested to make such case) is crazy enough to make such case, the situation is far from serious: --Milos Rancic 20:48, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

  1. It is not related to Anarchopedia. --Milos Rancic 20:48, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
  2. It is highly unlikely that any US court would take such case and to prosecute Anarchopedia as a provider of such "copyright infringement". (And just US courts matters in relation to Anarchopedia as it is hosted in US.) --Milos Rancic 20:48, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
  3. In both cases author or distributor are able to fix the problem before the situation came to the court. --Milos Rancic 20:48, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
  4. It is not under criminal laws, but under civil laws, as well as it may be treated just as a minor law infringement; and thus no one will go to the jail because of that, even all members of the process are crazy enough to finalize that before the court. --Milos Rancic 20:48, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

And, finally, if someone wants to prosecute me (as a domain owner) because of that, I wish them a good luck :) --Milos Rancic 20:48, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Perfect, Millosh, thanks. Just a question: the contents of anarchopedia were under GNU FDL, a copyleft license that is not compatible with PD/attribution-only; the same contents are under PD/attribution-only now. How is it possible? PD/attribution-only are compatible with GNU FDL, but GNU FDL is not compatible with PD/attribution-only. Bye. --K2 03:15, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
The legal situation in Europe could be addressed by allowing use of the CCO (Creative Commons Zero) license. Kaldari 18:59, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

The link says "terms of use"; but the article says "License. Why?"[edit] 17:05, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

no teme[edit]

I would like to exchange links with your site Is this possible?

Non è troppo tardi -[edit]

Riusciamo ancora a salvarci

Attraverso l'incrociarsi di ideologie opposte ci si inserisce nelle Nazioni Gli intellettuali devono passare dalla parte delle masse Le cattedre pluralistiche sostituiranno i congressi di vertice Le cattedre pluralistiche dal basso diverranno camere di compensazione, come erano finora i congressi di vertice: che seguivano alle guerre e definivano le condizioni di pace. Ora le cattedre dal basso anticiperanno le cause delle guerre e dei conflitti, prevenendoli. Le contestazioni e le proteste confermano invece la necessità dei capi: che, col solo loro esistere, tengono separate e conflittuali le collettività umane Per liberarci dai capi dobbiamo sostituirli nelle loro funzioni

Controproporremo progetti in positivo di autogestione coordinata a livello mondiale Si apriranno tutti i recinti, fisici e mentali, in cui i capi ci tengono rinchiusi abusivamente Dalla nuova situazione deriveranno i nuovi principi del Diritto internazionale . Le associazioni, facendo sistema, si autogestiranno secondo il principio della "autonomia operandi": sovranità individuale; che non impedirà agli altri di fare altre cose e diversamente; ciò che invece oggi i capi impediscono (illegalmente). Le associazioni di base sostituiranno i capi.

Mario Ragagnin

Bogus statement[edit]

"Anarchopedia is edited mostly by anarchists, most of whom do not care about copyright."

Most anarachists care deeply about rights, and that includes the right to copy the works of others, i.e. copyrights. What most anarchists don't care about is asserting copyrights against other people. As a political issue, however, I think a lot of anarchists care deeply about copyright. Being opposed to something and not caring about it are two different things, however. The whole "For those who care about capitalist values" thing is insulting to all the anarchists working within the Free Culture movement to oppose the abuse of copyright. Licensing and copyright issues are important to more than just capitalists. Kaldari 19:09, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


ich bin absolut gegen die ANTIFA!!! -- 20:40, 19 August 2014 (UTC)