Difference between revisions of "Talk:License"
(→Possible Licenses) |
(→Licensing: purity versus pragmatism: new section) |
||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
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 | 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. --[[User:Millosh|Milos Rancic]] 08:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC) | :Added. --[[User:Millosh|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. | ||
Revision as of 04:44, 21 June 2009
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.
