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."
It's a little early to judge whether the OAL will capture imaginations in the same way as OpenCola. But it's already clear that some of the strengths of open source software simply don't apply to music. In computing, the open source method lets users improve software by eliminating errors and inefficient bits of code, but it's not obvious how that might happen with music. In fact, the music is not really "open source" at all. The files posted on the OAL music website http://www.openmusicregistry.org so far are all MP3s and Ogg Vorbises--formats which allow you to listen but not to modify.
Replace the last sentence with:
The files posted on the OAL music website http://www.openmusicregistry.org so far are all MP3s and Ogg Vorbis. Although the files are easy to play and listen to, they are harder to modify.
Neither GPL or copyleft are copyright free. Instead they leverage the power of copyright to function. If GPL were turned down in court, say, it would mean all GPL code reverts with full copyright to the original copyright owner. It would not mean the stuff would become free, quite the opposite. Their copyleft definition mirrors GPL very well, and 'copyfree' would have very wrong connotations.
/Janne
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
Does the idea of copyleft make sense for things other than software? I'm thinking of the phrase: "Redistribute, copy, and modify, so long as your derivative work is also copyleft." 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? If the research were used to create a device, would the device have to be copyleft? The broad definition of "derivative work" is making me somewhat uncomfortable ... I want my research to be used for any reason, anywhere, by anyone, without worrying about the implications for them.
Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
Copyleft authors just choose to openly license their work. If you give up the copyright, you can't keep others from taking your work, stealing it, and making it "closed source".
-jbn
-jbn
It's a noble idea, but you really need to go and have a careful read about what copyleft is. The most important thing about copyleft is that it is fully copyrighted. Everything else depends on that. If it's not copyrighted, you can't enforce the rest of the terms, which allow very specific exceptions to the copyright.
For copyrighted work to change into copyleft, you have to add license terms. There is, in fact, nothing to stop any copy right holder adding copyleft terms to any existing copyright work. Copyleft adds rights.
What would be a problem is enforcing it on all copyrighted works in general, because that punishes rights holders. To enforce the copyleft, you'd have to keep the sanctity of copyright, while adding a whole new set of mandatory licensing terms. We could do it with a determined enough political will, but it'd be a hard one to explain to your average Jane Voter or Joe Politico, let alone Karl Corporate, who would vomit blood at the very thought of having any of his precious rights diluted one second before the final expiry.
I do honestly think that we're better of just having copyright expire after a fixed term and having the work enter the public domain. We'd be better off campaiging for our current Disney whoring politicians to stop extending copyright time limits than to try for a hard to understand, hard to enforce compromise.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.