I share below a set of questions to help decide what kind of
license/declaration/strategy to select for our various creative works.
I share this with Oekonux (where these ideas took shape) and at our
laboratory (in reply to Ed Cherlin, whose thoughtful letter I also
include). Thank you to Georg Pleger for encouraging me that my needs
and ideas might find support at Creative Commons. Andrius Kulikauskas,
http://www.ms.lt
------------------------------------------------------------
As a social networker, I seek to show the viability of "working openly"
so that all may integrate themselves into work-in-progress, both for
free, and for pay. I encourage participants of Minciu Sodas
http://www.ms.lt to build relationships with each other, and my efforts
depend on their providing ample content that all may circulate without
restriction. I therefore establish discussion groups, wikis and other
venues in which the content is, by default, in the Public Domain, unless
it explicitly notes otherwise.
I encourage our laboratory's partners and colleagues to likewise place
their venues in the "Public Domain except as noted" and have established
http://www.primarilypublicdomain.org to make this simpler. Many people
don't understand why I need to work in the Public Domain, and why I do
not find Copyright, Copyleft or Creative Commons helpful as a default.
Each of these has its advantages. Georg Pfleger of the Creative Commons
Austria pointed me to the Creative Commons license selection process and
encouraged me to try to improve on that.
At heart, the question is, When we work together, are we thinking of
ourselves as a "set of individuals", or as a "commons"? Let us consider
the two extremes.
If, as an author, I think of myself as one individual among many,
then my work which I share is my finished "product". My wishes will be
definitive. I will be held accountable for my content. I will fix the
boundaries of my work. I will share with those who share as I do. If
my work has any value, then I will require compensation. The law will
protect my rights as an individual, as affirmed by Copyright.
Alternatively, as an author, I may think of myself as a participant of
the commons. I share my "work-in-progress" so that I might involve
others. My wishes defer to the commons, except where my content states
clearly otherwise. I am not held accountable for my work, and I do not
insist on attribution. My work has no set boundaries, and is
modifiable. My work is for all, for those of every culture, not only
those who share as I do. I give without expecting anything in return.
Morality protects my work, and I declare it Public Domain.
What the GPL, Creative Commons and others have done is to show that we
can actually consider mixed modes. I've put together a list of
questions to help us consider our wishes as authors, and decide the
extent to which we are a "set of individuals" or a "commons".
-----------------------------------------------------------
Who is the author?
Set of Individuals => Express your wish definitely, simply, purely.
Commons => Express your wish as a default "except as noted".
Who is accountable?
Set of Individuals => Insist on attribution.
Commons => Do not insist on attribution.
Who sets the boundaries of the work?
Set of Individuals => Prohibit modifications.
Commons => Allow modifications.
Who should the work unite?
Set of Individuals => Share alike = Share with those of the same culture
of sharing.
Commons => Share with all (of every culture).
Who should the work sustain?
Set of Individuals => Require reciprocity, negotiation.
Commons => Presume nonreciprocity, giving.
Whose rights should be protected?
Set of Individuals => Rely on laws. License as Copyright (or Copyleft,
Creative Commons, etc.).
Commons => Rely on morality. Declare as Public Domain.
-----------------------------------------------------------
The crucial point here is that I'm thinking of the "commons" as more
than just a "set of individuals", or even all individuals. A "set of
individuals" consists of participants who may assume of each other that
they are all conscious, accountable, independent, equal, free, able to
negotiate, subject to legal rights, and able to form a "social
contract". A "commons" lets us care on behalf of others, those beyond
us - people who will come after us, and those who came before; those who
are not aware, mature, sane, conscious, responsible; our shared culture,
and even those outside of humankind, animals, plants, and all of nature.
I'll consider a few important examples of licenses/declarations which
interweave the viewpoint of "sets of individuals" and of "the commons".
GNU Public License (GPL)
-----------------------------
AUTHOR: Set of Individuals
ACCOUNTABLE: Commons
MARKS BOUNDARIES: Commons
UNITES: Set of Individuals
SUSTAINS: Commons
PROTECTS: Set of Individuals
Creative Commons
http://www.creativecommons.org
-----------------------------
AUTHOR: Set of Individuals
ACCOUNTABLE: Set of Individuals OR Commons
MARKS BOUNDARIES: Set of Individuals OR Commons
UNITES: Set of Individuals OR Commons
SUSTAINS: Set of Individuals OR Commons
PROTECTS: Set of Individuals
Primarily Public Domain
http://www.primarilypublicdomain.org
-----------------------------
AUTHOR: Commons
ACCOUNTABLE: Set of Individuals OR Commons
MARKS BOUNDARIES: Set of Individuals OR Commons
UNITES: Set of Individuals OR Commons
SUSTAINS: Set of Individuals OR Commons
PROTECTS: Commons
I hope to discuss them in more detail, and make some more remarks.
Thank you for questions, suggestions and ideas!
Andrius
Andrius Kulikauskas
Minciu Sodas
http://www.ms.lt
ms ms.lt
from the Hotel Karolinenhof in Vienna, Austria
Ed Cherlin wrote:
> I edited this proposal down to the sections talking about Public
> Domain and related concepts, and some of the goals meant to be
> achieved by putting materials into the Public Domain. My purpose is to
> inquire about the reasoning behind the insistence on Public Domain
> status, and rejection of copyleft and other protective measures.
>
> You see, I haven't seen the reasoning, and I don't understand the
> point of putting everything into the Public Domain, where on the one
> hand everybody will be able to use the released version, but on the
> other hand anybody can make some modifications and copyright the
result.
>
> As far as I can see, contrary to what Andrius has written below
> putting a document or other creation under copyright in no way
> prevents the author from sharing it openly. This is demonstrated to my
> satisfaction, but not to Andrius's, by the Free Software Foundation's
> copyleft, including its Free documentation licenses. Anyone can get
> the source code for a program under Free license, and can modify it
> and publish the results. The GNU Public License forbids that other
> person from placing restrictions on the public's use of the modified
> version. What is wrong with that?
>
> In any case, if you really want to let people use your code and make
> the results proprietary, you can use the BSD license or select from
> many others.
>
> A friend of mine, John Sankey, published his MIDI recordings of all of
> the Scarlatti harpsichord sonatas on the Internet, releasing them to
> the Public Domain. Someone then modified the instrument encoding and
> made a few other minor changes, copyrighted the result, and began
> threatening to sue any site that published Sankey's originals.
> Although this threat has no legal merit, Sankey would have been in a
> much stronger position to prevent this problem if he had been the
> copyright owner and had licensed his recordings freely. In that case
> he could treat the usurper as an infringer on the Free license.
>
> --- In minciu_sodas_en yahoogroups.com, Andrius Kulikauskas <ms m...>
> wrote:
>
>
>>The Internet is becoming more available, but there is a lack of
>>understanding of why and how to participate in the global society.
>>Generally, people do not realize that wealth is relationships, and
that
>>knowledge out of context is worthless. Copyright laws protect all
>>content, and presume that authors do not want to share anything except
>>on a case-by-case basis.
>>
>
> Even if some of the people who wrote copyright laws felt that way, the
> laws themselves create no impediment to sharing.
>
>
>>This makes it illegal, immoral or impractical
>>for organizers to freely circulate content so as to openly foster
>>relationships.
>>
>
> I can't see how this could be the case. I and many others in the Free
> Software, Free Textbook, and related movements share content all the
> time. Am I missing something?
>
>>Thinking of wealth in terms of relationships, contexts, assets instead
>>of knowledge, rights, profits.Circulating micro-content as a way of
>>building relationships.Establishing Public Domain Zones for the free
>>circulation of micro-content.Allowing for Public Domain "except as
>>noted" so as to acknowledge all manner of licenses and
>>wishes.Campaigning to cultivate a culture of the Public Domain instead
>>of invoking or inventing legal protections such as copyright, copyleft
>>or Creative Commons.
>>
>
> Well, this is the central point of the discussion. What exactly is
> wrong with legal protections for sharing?
>
>
>>Steering a culture away from Western legal
>>traditions and solutions that have lost sense in an information
>>explosion.Considering our small country as a cultural zone that we
>>might shape with a thoughtful campaign.
>
> Does this mean steering the culture toward a different legal
> framework, where the Public Domain would be a protected commons, safe
> from enclosure and other usurpations? If so, can you be more specific?
>
> You see, I thought that Copyleft was just such a different legal
> framework, turning the existing laws against themselves and against
> the traditions and solutions of the proprietary past in a legal and
> cultural ju-jutsu.
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Make a clean sweep of pop-up ads. Yahoo! Companion Toolbar.
Now with Pop-Up Blocker. Get it for free!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/L5YrjA/eSIIAA/yQLSAA/pyIolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
Each letter sent to minciu_sodas_en yahoogroups.com
enters the PUBLIC DOMAIN whenever it does not state otherwise. http://www.primarilypublicdomain.org/letter/
Please credit our authors!
To Post a message, send it to: minciu_sodas_en yahooGroups.com
To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: minciu_sodas_en-unsubscribe yahooGroups.com
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/minciu_sodas_en/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
minciu_sodas_en-unsubscribe yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/