Message 02624 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: oxenT02592 Message: 5/9 L4 [In index]
[First in Thread] [Last in Thread] [Date Next] [Date Prev]
[Next in Thread] [Prev in Thread] [Next Thread] [Prev Thread]

Re: [ox-en] sense and nonsense of licenses (bare acts/sarai reader 5)

Rob Myers wrote:

On 2 Oct 2004, at 09:21, Andrius Kulikauskas wrote:

I'm interested to learn what kind of social and economic arrangements make the Public Domain work.

They don't. When you place something in the public domain it can be strip-mined by anyone without credit, payment, or return. See Disney's use of Public Domain stories to make movies, Microsoft's use of BSD (effectively Public Domain) code in Windows, and the use of public domain images in corporate projects by graphic designers.

   I define return differently.
My concept of contribution to the commons is heavily influenced by the notion that use by any other person is a return to at least one member of society, and of value. Disney may tell you that their movies are not a part of the commons - but they are basing this on the consensual illusion of law. What they have created will influence those that have partaken regardless of what someone decides to codify. There is also the question of reduction of value; do any of these actions somehow take from the value of the original offering? Not in many cases, leaving the need for any return questionable. Also you must question your current position - if it is not completely correct then you do a disservice to the public to lock your item into a framework based on your current position. Out of consideration for my own arrogance, and a general belief in the goodness of the majority - I find creating things with no such limitations a very logical action. The arrangements of the commons are more complex and subtle than an economic transaction - but they certainly exist.

   To speak to the original question - I don't think that it matters :)
With the loss of the legal system there is no concept of 'public domain' - everything becomes public if it's available. As a legal construct, the GPL or any other agreement would be of non entity if there was no legal framework for them to exist within.

The GPL is stronger than PD because you have to provide source.

I think perhaps in the long-term it is not stronger. It is less flexible - and so, can not evolve. This is why laws can be amended - it is understood that they will not be forever relevant.

Organization: projekt

Thread: oxenT02592 Message: 5/9 L4 [In index]
Message 02624 [Homepage] [Navigation]