Difference between revisions of "Talk:License"

Revision as of 01:24, 29 July 2010

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

Possible Licenses

Creative Commons: Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

CopyLeft

Rescued link

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: http://meta.anarchopedia.org/License_change

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

Licensing: purity versus pragmatism

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. 24.16.80.91 20:09, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

A topical essay

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):

http://subsol.c3.hu/subsol_2/contributors0/nimustext.html

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

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

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 link says "terms of use"; but the article says "License. Why?"

206.130.173.55 17:05, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

no teme

I want to quote your post in my blog. It can? And you et an account on Twitter?

no teme

it was very interesting to read. I want to quote your post in my blog. It can? And you et an account on Twitter?