Re: [ox-en] Copyleft on Everything?
- From: Graham Seaman <graham seul.org>
- Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2003 16:51:07 -0400 (EDT)
On Wed, 9 Apr 2003, MJ Ray wrote:
Graham Seaman <graham seul.org> wrote:
Even then, I don't believe it - newspapers aren't really scientific texts,
and even German newspapers quote people all the time, don't they?
Isn't "in the public interest" a defence in German author rights law?
this is paranoid. Since in every other area we are trying to resist
extension of IP laws, why accept the most outrageous claims by IP law
proponents in something as absolutely basic as simple written discussion
of ideas. Should I attach a copy of the gfdl to this and every email I
write to allow people to quote it in reply?
...only if you want them to be able to add invariant sections about their
relationship to you? ;-)
Seriously, this came about because of concern that you were giving in to
IP law and copyrighting your article under the strictest possible terms.
From my point of view this came about because there was a requirement for
conference papers that they had to be put under a license. Since I didn't
want to go through all this stuff about invariant sections, I just used
the simplest one I could see, and where I knew I had rms's seal of
approval (I don't actually think he's hypocritical in this, as you
suggested before). Without the requirement for a license I would have
been happier -
EITHER to use no license at all but leave it under copyright, with
all the fair use rights that should imply.
OR if that caused genuine problems to put it in the public domain
(ie. no license, and not under copyright).
But I couldn't do either of the above because of the conference
conditions.
In any case, I have no intention to sue anyone whatever they do - I don't
have the money for lawyers ;-), so it doesn't really make any difference
to anyone else which I do.
I do think the gfdl or similar licenses are entirely appropriate for
technical manuals, which is what it was intended for. If you do use the
gfdl though it only has any meaning on the assumption that you are
prepared to sue people.
If I can negotiate a licence privately when needed, that's fine for me.
Slightly worried what happens when you fall off the planet, though, but
then I guess you probably won't sue me.
I'm still not planning on negotiating a license - if anyone writes to me
and says 'here's a changed copy of your talk', I'll either say 'that's
really different - I'd rather you put it under your name and left me out
of it' or 'cool, thanks'. If someone changes it and doesn't ask me I'll
think 'what a rude person' and leave it at that.
I guess I need to expand the existing 'license' to say 'this article will
go into the public domain immediately on my death' ;-)
This all seems WAY too serious to me for a little web article hardly
anyone will read, though I guess people will tell me it's the principle
that counts. In which case I will carry on arguing for the precedence of
social behaviour over legal documents any day. :-)
Graham
PS I want a law which defends authors' moral rights rather than their
property rights; I guess the oekonux society will have one when it comes..
_______________________
http://www.oekonux.org/