Difference between revisions of "Aktivix:Copyrights"

From Aktivix
Jump to: navigation, search
m (Reverted edits by Upyxyjujynu (talk) to last revision by Hamsters)
 
(59 intermediate revisions by 9 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
== Choice of license ==
+
=== The propositions ===
  
'''Background'''
+
These licenses have been suggested as the licenses that articulate the positions of what we can call, very loosely, the "anti-capitalist activist" ethics and the "hacker" ethics...
 +
* anti-capitalist version
 +
** [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/ Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike]
  
A copyright license can take many forms. Copyright, as a concept, is related to rights in general and to property rights in particular. Property rights are about social organisation: how can people related to each other and through the objects that surround them? Property is ''not'' referring to objects as such, but should be understood as some sort of articulations that makes it possible for people to live together without too much friction. Property rights such as those used in the liberal/capitalist market economy are based on exclusion: if this is my car it is my right to exclude you from using it (and a whole range of other stipulations and restrictions, as well as permissions are possible for the proprietor). The genius of the basic Free Software document, which is in effect the constitution of the Free Software community, namely the GNU General Public Licence (or simply the GPL), is that is subverts this exclusionary logic and bases its property rights (copyright) around distribution instead. That is the concept of Copyleft. Copyleft is a particular Copyright. It is radically different, but it is a Copyright, since it deals with issues that a creator or inventor may have with her work.
+
-or-
  
More reading can be found on the websites of the [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy  Free Software Foundation] and [http://creativecommons.org Creative Commons].
+
* hacker version
 +
** [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/ Attribution-ShareAlike]
 +
Some of the differences have been outlined on these threads:
 +
* [http://springnight.burngreave.net/pipermail/aktivix/2004-June/thread.html June 2004]
 +
* [http://springnight.burngreave.net/pipermail/aktivix/2004-July/thread.html July 2004]
  
The purpose of this page is to facilitate a discussion about the choice of Copyright, or as it were the kind of Copyleft, that AktiviX as a collective will use for this Wiki. The GPL and the associated [http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html GNU Free Documentation License], which is the current/initial default license of the AktiviX Wiki, indicates that the sky is wide open; and the elaborations of Copyleft licenses by the Creative Commons show that articulations of property rights in a Global Information Society can take an infinite variety of forms only limited by our own imaginations (and political repression and corruption, of course)!
+
*''( I don't think there is any difference between the two as the difficulty of defining commercial is a problem. Anyway the viral nature of the share-alike makes the license particularly worrying to any corporation! -DMB)
  
 +
Particularly
 +
* [http://springnight.burngreave.net/pipermail/aktivix/2004-June/000331.html copyright configuration: licensing commercial use?]
 +
** and it has spilled over into a list discussing a [http://lists.fsc.cc/mailman/private/fsact_lists.fsc.cc/2004-July/thread.html Free Software Act]. [THE OPENING OF THESE ARCHIVES HAS BEEN REQUESTED [http://lists.fsc.cc/mailman/private/fsact_lists.fsc.cc/2004-July/000164.html HERE]
  
'''Context'''
+
In effect we are faced with a question about what "commercial" actually means in the CC language and how to relate to differences in commercial activities.
  
AktiviX is a network, a collective, or a group in formation of people that has come together through a realisation of the exciting explorations possible between traditional political activists and hackers: free tools for a free culture for a free world - or how can we have free minds of we don't have free information?
+
It seems that "commercial" might mean any kind of selling and trading where money is involved begging further "analytic breaking down" into categories that are about what kind of commercial activity. This may be defined by intentions, morals and values or code of the organisation performing that activity, since there is a big difference between [http://seedsforchange.org.uk/ Seeds for Change] and [http://www.ibm.com IBM], for instance.
  
The need for a license for the Wiki contributions makes sense in at least three major ways: (i) to organise our collaborations in a way that minimises the potential for conflicts about ownership, both internally to AktiviX and with concerns to external "actors"; and (ii) to practice and experiment with property rights to gain a better understanding of this basic legal aspect of social organisation and to do so through experimental, collaborative self-organisation. Moreover, (iii) by discussing, choosing and testing one or more licenses and by providing feedback to those who create them, AktiviX actively engages with and contributes to the Copyleft movement, which is part of the "movement of movements for globalisation from below".
+
Consider this excerpt...
  
In brief, there is a need for decision making within AktiviX about licensing of the stuff contributed to the Wiki (and other collorative environments that may emerge) in order to avoid future conflict, to experiment and to make a political statement: another property system is possible!
+
On Thu, 2004-07-08 at 22:28, ANON wrote...
  
 +
""''I have done so myself, by - for example - giving Roblimo/Newsforge permission to reprint my articles. They are doing it for profit; I know that. My default license is a non-commercial CC license. But when I give someone else written permission to use my work, they have a separate license. Is that prejudiced? Yes, it is. Is it fair? I think so. Is it ethical? I think so. Is it profitable? Sometimes.''""
  
'''Aims and Terms'''
+
* the response...
  
It could be said that property rights, in this case Copyrights, are so fundamental to social organisation that a boundary of a community is drawn up with them. The Free Software community is a good example, as well as the higher echelons of corporate power and wealth, who fight to protect their property through all means. While it is well adviced to avoid fundamentalism and other fanatic behaviour, such as racism and xenophobia, it is also well adviced to draw the boundaries of your community. These can be inclusive and exclusive in so many ways.
+
""''So, we agree on the principal matters, I believe.''
  
A question that makes sense to ask: where does the
+
''You also do like to be able to be prejudiced according to your own reason, but for you the switching of license is a possibility because you is only you. The co-operative or volunteer collective cannot practically sit in the fench like the Sovereign individual. A group, based on consensus decision making structures can by virtue of its nature not be expected to be able to incorporate everyone's sentiments without infringing upon others', and therefore compromises must be made sometimes by someone.''
 +
 
 +
''The collective must comprehend something common, something that gives the same peace of mind as you gain individually through the social organisation of your creative property. How can they do it if 75 people of whom 25 can be contacted have 50 different opinions about whether Newsagency XYZ should be allowed to spread their material for a meagre profit that was to be returned into local youth programmes? I should say yes.''
 +
''My partner in crime, a fellow member of the collective, might stand strong on her feminist anti-capitalist refusal to nurture bonds with hierarchical or non-horizontal organisations. If we're to share a project, and both our sentiments are to be realised we need either: (i) a more profound taxonomy that specifies what particular kind of "commercial activity" we want to exlude from our community; or (ii) we need a label for organisations that can accept and trust. By analogy we need a label reflecting the original ideas of  "organic" or "ecologic" or really like "bio-dynamic", but as we know they are fully overrun by lobbyists and turned into a corporate white/green and blue sky wash. So those ideas are dead and gone, since state power = wall street + pentagon.''
 +
 
 +
''What is an appropriate, sustainable format for commercial activity? Is there such a thing as anarchist business?''

Latest revision as of 23:45, 25 November 2010

The propositions

These licenses have been suggested as the licenses that articulate the positions of what we can call, very loosely, the "anti-capitalist activist" ethics and the "hacker" ethics...

-or-

Some of the differences have been outlined on these threads:

  • ( I don't think there is any difference between the two as the difficulty of defining commercial is a problem. Anyway the viral nature of the share-alike makes the license particularly worrying to any corporation! -DMB)

Particularly

In effect we are faced with a question about what "commercial" actually means in the CC language and how to relate to differences in commercial activities.

It seems that "commercial" might mean any kind of selling and trading where money is involved begging further "analytic breaking down" into categories that are about what kind of commercial activity. This may be defined by intentions, morals and values or code of the organisation performing that activity, since there is a big difference between Seeds for Change and IBM, for instance.

Consider this excerpt...

On Thu, 2004-07-08 at 22:28, ANON wrote...

""I have done so myself, by - for example - giving Roblimo/Newsforge permission to reprint my articles. They are doing it for profit; I know that. My default license is a non-commercial CC license. But when I give someone else written permission to use my work, they have a separate license. Is that prejudiced? Yes, it is. Is it fair? I think so. Is it ethical? I think so. Is it profitable? Sometimes.""

  • the response...

""So, we agree on the principal matters, I believe.

You also do like to be able to be prejudiced according to your own reason, but for you the switching of license is a possibility because you is only you. The co-operative or volunteer collective cannot practically sit in the fench like the Sovereign individual. A group, based on consensus decision making structures can by virtue of its nature not be expected to be able to incorporate everyone's sentiments without infringing upon others', and therefore compromises must be made sometimes by someone.

The collective must comprehend something common, something that gives the same peace of mind as you gain individually through the social organisation of your creative property. How can they do it if 75 people of whom 25 can be contacted have 50 different opinions about whether Newsagency XYZ should be allowed to spread their material for a meagre profit that was to be returned into local youth programmes? I should say yes. My partner in crime, a fellow member of the collective, might stand strong on her feminist anti-capitalist refusal to nurture bonds with hierarchical or non-horizontal organisations. If we're to share a project, and both our sentiments are to be realised we need either: (i) a more profound taxonomy that specifies what particular kind of "commercial activity" we want to exlude from our community; or (ii) we need a label for organisations that can accept and trust. By analogy we need a label reflecting the original ideas of "organic" or "ecologic" or really like "bio-dynamic", but as we know they are fully overrun by lobbyists and turned into a corporate white/green and blue sky wash. So those ideas are dead and gone, since state power = wall street + pentagon.

What is an appropriate, sustainable format for commercial activity? Is there such a thing as anarchist business?