Slashdot Mirror
New Scientist Tries Out Copyleft
uchian writes: "New Scientist has an article about The GPL, open source, and how attempts are being made to apply the philosopy to areas other than software. Little new ground is covered, but it is interesting that the article itself is "Copyleft", so you are free to redistribute, modify and copy as long as long as your derivative work is also copyleft."
The problems with open music, however, haven't put people off trying open source methods elsewhere.
;-) we get from unselfish artists.
They actually forgot to mention GNUArt which is my attempt to apply the GNU General Public License to Art.
We also opened a Gallery which we slowly fill with whatever quality stuff (mostly music and photographs but, hey, the one who criticize are supposed to help too
That's it, hope it'll raise some interest.
Trolling using another account since 2005.
From opencola's formula page
An important note: this is *not* the recipe for "OpenCola" -- that is, the canned beverage from OpenCola that you may have received at a trade show, or other venue or outlet. Making canned cola requires millions of dollars in abstruse gear and manufacturing gizmos. It's easier to make nerve gas than manufacture cola. This is a kitchen-sink recipe that you can make all on your own. It is *our* kitchen-sink recipe. We figured it out somewhere between coding the COLA SDK and debugging the Linux build of the clerver.
bug.gd: error search engine. Humanity working together to solve all errors.
Every article or image that is produced by copyright concious organizations is marked as being copyrighted, with the © and owners name.
Its high time that there was a unique, instantly recognisable symbol for everything that is released under one of the new copyright licences.
The article in question does not have a symbol to mark it as Open Content or Copyleft or Free Content. Unmarked articles are by default, copyrighted upon creation according to the Berne Convention, so if the article was not about copyleft content, one would immediately assume that it was copyrighted if you were to come across it. You would immediately refrain from using it for fear of being sued, and they could claim that it was not freed, because it is not marked as freed.
If this idea of freed content and the freed content itself are to spread, then all content released under these licences needs to be clearly marked as freed; as clearly as the IP that is traditionally copyrighted.
At this page we have created a set of graphic devices to solve this problem.
Using the old © inverted is about as inelegant a solution as you could dream up. It sends the wrong signals, that in some way, Open Content or Copyleft is "upside down", "wrong way around" or the polar opposite of Copyright, which it is not. Copyright is seen, almost universally, as A Good Thing®. The opposite of a good thing is a bad thing. The use of the inverted © conveys a kind of "upside down crucifix" vibe which is counterproductive.
The new symbol solves this problem, scales graphically for both print and web, and conveys the idea that the properties that it is attached to are licenced content.
ATH0 Bitcoin: 1DnwFLXczVZV8kLJbMYoheUrpqHesjxrSi
Even so, it would be fun to try making some. But there's nothing new here: cola recipes have been around for decades, and the folklore process that propagates them is the original form of open source.
The GPL works with software because you have very few rights as it is to modify and redistribute the software. By granting you some extra rights (namely to freely copy and modify), the GPL can ask for you to give something back in return. If you don't want to give back, then you don't get to modify.
On the other hand, there are well-established fair use rights in published materials which you have regardless of whether the author specifically grants them to you. Since it is already legal for you to cite the work or create a device based on the work, the author has no legal basis from which to require you to do anything you don't want with your own work. Conversely, since you don't have the right to modify and redistribute the author's work, he/she can ask something further from you.
The biggest issue I have with copyleft of written materials is that I don't really think many of the same needs apply. I can see how a GPL'd piece of documentation might possibly be useful, since it could be helpful to have a large number of people working on the documentation. As far as other types of writing goes, though, I personally would not want someone else to have the right to take what I said and distort those words to their own use. Of course, that's just my opinion and other individuals are free to copyleft their written works as they like.
"If English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for everyone else."
Copyleft is a bad word to use. It's too vague and open to misinterpretation. If we're talking specifically about the GPL, then yes, that's exactly what it means.
The GPL is an extremely powerful tool. Like most tools, it can hurt the ignorant. I have seen professional software developers sneaking GPL code in closed source projects, then looking at me with hurt puppy dog expressions when I tear into them for trying to steal other people's copyrighted work. "But it's free!" they explain, never having actually read (or understood) the GPL.
The GPL means exactly what it says. Copyleft, free beer, free speech, all of those are irrelevant buzzwords. It says, and it means:
This work is copyrighted. It belongs to the people that wrote it. You can't copy or use it [important pause ] unless you agree to follow these very strict restrictions on how you use it: provide source, do not remove this license, do not modify this license, apply this license to any derivative work including a much larger work that directly includes this work in any way.Those are the cost of using GPL code. If the cost is too high, don't use it. Pay a different cost to source the information/code/text elsewhere.
In your case, if you find some GPL research that you want to build on, but without making your research GPL, then treat the GPL work as a fully copyrighted work. You can quote selectively from it using the existing fair use defence, put your nuts on the line, and release your work as an original non-GPL (and non-copyrighted, or explicitely "copy without restrictions" work) work. If you want to include the entire GPL work, then you can do that, if you pay the cost, which is to GPL your derivation. If the GPL work is by a single author, hey, feel free to approach them and negotiate for a version of their work without a GPL license, just as you'd do right now to obtain the right to make a substantial copy. The GPL gives you more options, not fewer.
It never fails to amaze me how many people are unaware of the implications of the GPL. Microsoft calls it viral, a cancer. Love it or loathe it, it's absolutely true. That's the point of it! Rejoice in that. You can't strip the GPL off a piece of work, but you can extend it to other works. The body of GPL licensed work will only grow, never shrink.
The only debate is whether that's a bad thing or a good thing. I view it as a good thing, because right now it's giving more options, and you can choose to use non-GPL sources. When we reach the point where there are no non-GPL sources, we might have to start thinking about how this impinges on a few very, very narrow issues, like national security (but not on protecting corporations). That's a long way off though. Until then, the GPL means what it says, and it says: "There's a cost to using this. Pay it, or find another way."
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
"copyfree" could also be misconstrued as "free from being copied" or some other nonsense. Copyleft may be a bad pun, but at least it's pretty clear that "left" is the opposite of "right"
BlackGriffen
This is a great post and I'm personally going to make a note of your bolded/emphasized summary of the GPL, because it is so clear. (I'm trying to work on a Master's thesis on the question of whether GPL-ish licenses have any place, beyond software, in the context of international development. Your bolds and important pauses make it clear what the GPL is.)
I found one aspect of your post confusing, though, at first.
Q. If, for example, research results are published under copyleft, would that mean that any subsequent work that cites the research would also have to be copyleft? [...]
A. [...] If we're talking specifically about the GPL, then yes, that's exactly what it means.
In fact, that isn't what it means. (Although you may have been mostly referring in your response to the latter part of the original poster's question, which I omitted above, I didn't realize it at first.)
As you explained later for those who took the time to read your full post --
In your case, if you find some GPL research that you want to build on, but without making your research GPL, then treat the GPL work as a fully copyrighted work. You can quote selectively from it using the existing fair use defence [...].
IMHO, this is exactly right. The license, GPL or otherwise, is a copyright license and as such, restricts only what copyright will allow. If normal copyright would permit the citation, (i.e., footnotes/bibliographies/appropriately-brief quotations), then you have nothing to fear from copyleft.