94 lines
5.5 KiB
Org Mode
94 lines
5.5 KiB
Org Mode
#+title: My works, non-copylefted
|
|
#&summary
|
|
Why I don't use copyleft for my own works.
|
|
#&
|
|
#+startup: showall
|
|
#+license: wtfpl
|
|
|
|
#&+classes=warning
|
|
This old opinion is somewhat verbose and, well, old. See <@eval
|
|
macros.titlelink('/writings/licensing')@> for my current opinion. Why do I
|
|
keep changing opinions? Ugh...
|
|
#&
|
|
|
|
* My works, non-copylefted
|
|
|
|
A few months ago, I went from using the GPL for most of my software to BSD3;
|
|
read about it [[/writings/software-licenses][here]]. I chose to continue to use Creative Commons
|
|
Attribution-ShareAlike for most of my non-software works.
|
|
|
|
Now, I have chosen to stop copylefting my original works entirely.
|
|
|
|
I do this not because of a change in my general view of copyleft, but because I
|
|
don't see myself ever using the legal benefits of copyleft; I can still
|
|
understand why someone would choose to use copyleft to challenge copyright,
|
|
fighting fire with fire, but it's just not something I would do.
|
|
|
|
The power of copyright lies in whether people accept the terms that an author
|
|
puts forth, and that, if the copyright is abused, the author uses the law to
|
|
punish the abusers. The same is essentially true for copyleft. So, if I
|
|
release a work under e.g. Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike, and someone
|
|
derives a new work from that and does not copyleft that, I have the power to
|
|
make them change that decision; I could contact them and try to convince them to
|
|
be nice and free their work; I could contact them and say they *must* free the
|
|
work because of the law; and I could even /sue/ them for not freeing their work!
|
|
|
|
Until now I have, without really realizing it, used copyleft licenses only for
|
|
the signal they send: If you create something new from something I have made
|
|
free, please make your work free as well. I never thought about what would
|
|
happen and what I would do if someone broke the law and didn't follow my
|
|
copyleft. I probably should have thought about that at the beginning, but hey,
|
|
I just wanted to make my works freely available and modifiable and hope that
|
|
others would do the same!
|
|
|
|
While I don't think it is wrong to use even lawsuits for upholding copyleft,
|
|
it's not something I would /ever/ do. If someone takes a copylefted work and
|
|
abuses it, the community does not lose works; it simply does not gain them.
|
|
Arguing against this argument would be the same as asserting that Hollywood
|
|
loses money when people do not pay for digital, made-at-no-cost copies of their
|
|
films -- a view I certainly don't agree with.
|
|
|
|
Of course, I might never have to enter a lawsuit to uphold copyleft. Maybe just
|
|
asking the abuser would be enough in all cases. But since this very page is
|
|
public, the abuser would realize that I don't intend to sue in any case, so they
|
|
might just ignore my request. And I don't intend to manipulate people into
|
|
making them think I would sue them.
|
|
|
|
It's not my impression that there has been a lot of court cases involving
|
|
copyleft; most of the license violations seem to be handled without the need for
|
|
lawsuits, though I guess both lawyers and the threat of lawsuits are still quite
|
|
used. The FSF's [[https://www.fsf.org/licensing/compliance][Compliance Lab]] gives a good impression of the potential
|
|
difficulty of fixing license violations. I don't mind this compliance fixing,
|
|
but in principle I am a bit against spending time making evil people relicense
|
|
works when time could be spent making good people create new, free works. In
|
|
the long run, this will surely result in more good, free works, though forcing
|
|
someone evil to relicence might be practical in the short run.
|
|
|
|
In essence: Copyright is so hopelessly broken, and personally I'm not going to
|
|
fight copyright with itself. This is because I'm not going to depend its and
|
|
copyleft's legal benefits, and that is because I would only depend on something
|
|
broken if I found it /very/ necessary and not just useful in the short run. I
|
|
just want to share my works freely, and if someone who uses my works don't want
|
|
to do that, I'll simply ignore them. My walking away from copyleft makes my
|
|
works usable by more people.
|
|
|
|
#&img;url=/img/licenses/wtfpl.png,float=right
|
|
|
|
So, from now on I'll use the [[http://www.wtfpl.net/][Do What The Fuck You Want To Public License (WTFPL)]]
|
|
for all my original works, software and culture alike. I don't think that the
|
|
"fuck" in the license is a problem. I also thought about using Creative Commons
|
|
Zero, but even though [[http://wiki.creativecommons.org/CC0_FAQ][it can be used for software]], [[http://opensource.org/licenses/index.html][OSI has not approved it]]
|
|
because of [[http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2012-February/thread.html][a patent clause]] ([[https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#CC0][FSF has approved it]], and it's also DFSG-free), so it
|
|
might be unpractical. WTFPL has been approved by the FSF. [[http://opensource.org/minutes20090304][OSI rejected it]], but
|
|
that's because they didn't consider it a license and not because they disagreed
|
|
with any of the (1) clauses in the WTFPL, so I don't think using the WTFPL will
|
|
pose any practical problems. I'll still contribute to copyleft works, though I
|
|
might mention this URL.
|
|
|
|
I was a bit inspired by [[http://blog.ninapaley.com/2013/01/18/ahimsa-sita-sings-the-blues-now-cc-0-public-domain/][Nina Paley's change to CC 0 from CC BY-SA]]. I think her
|
|
story is scary.
|
|
|
|
My first copylefted program to be un-copylefted is the generator for this
|
|
website which used to be under the AGPL. I'll relicense the rest of my works on
|
|
a need-to-basis (there are so many, and I have other stuff to do).
|