| Message 02690 | [Homepage] | [Navigation] | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Thread: oxenT02678 Message: 2/2 L1 | [In index] | ||
| [First in Thread] | [Last in Thread] | [Date Next] | [Date Prev] |
| [Next in Thread] | [Prev in Thread] | [Next Thread] | [Prev Thread] |
Franz Nahrada wrote:
I thought it would be less? It seemed to me that it would be much easier to recognize a base work as being an open item, hence all items making use of it must also be open - contrary to our current system where you are forced to verify that every separate aspect of a thing as defined by law must be shown to be legally available for the particular instance?but to an increasing overload of creative and scientific work with buerocratic procedures and requirements.
From: minciu_sodas_en yahoogroups.com Richard Nelson <rick solaroof.org>
Let me start by saying I find the impetus for this to be quite reasonable - I would welcome any clarification on anything I seem to misunderstand.. I am very curious to see where this leads :)In the Ethical Public Domain definition there is no statement like the above that will ensure harm upon the dedicator, rather there is a reverse of this statement that "ethically and morally (but not legally) calls upon the users of the work to voluntarily consider the conditions for use specified by the author of the work to be binding so long as the user finds a benefit and if a payment is called for the user should respond to the author or "PayItForward" to the heirs or community in which the author works or lived". Creating our own Ethical Public Domain Definition will free us from the legalistic approach to creative works.
It seems to me - adding further components to a contract-type social construct is heading down the path of 'legalistic approach'. If you are asking for someone to do something 'voluntarily' - then there is no need to codify anything? The idea itself is a reaction to the 'presupposition that all people will act without ethics if force of law is not present' - and gives strength to it, though you recognize it as a 'false assumption'. The concept of maintaining something for heirs (communal or biological) states that you have less respect for everyone existing concurrently - as well as that intellectual items are able to be owned? Also, it places historical momentum on current events - such that you abrogating the selbstentfaltung of future generations to your own..
Cheers! -sándor _________________________________ Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/ Organization: projekt oekonux.de
| Thread: oxenT02678 Message: 2/2 L1 | [In index] | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Message 02690 | [Homepage] | [Navigation] | |