160 lines
9.3 KiB
Markdown
160 lines
9.3 KiB
Markdown
|
# All "Thoughts" and Site Text Now Licensed Under CC BY-SA
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
All "thoughts"---that is, my blog-like entries that are generated by the
|
||
|
|
repository commit messages---and site text are hereby retroactively relicensed
|
||
|
|
under the [Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License][0].
|
||
|
|
This license shall not supersede any license that is explicitly put forth within
|
||
|
|
a work; see the COPYING file within the thoughts repository---available on the
|
||
|
|
"Projects" page---for more information.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
[0]: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
<!-- more -->
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
This is not a decision I take lightly; it has received much thought over the
|
||
|
|
course of recent years. For some time, I accepted [the view of Richard Stallman
|
||
|
|
and the Free Software Foundation][1] on opinion pieces in that, since they
|
||
|
|
express personal opinions, it is not unreasonable to require that they be
|
||
|
|
distributed verbatim. Indeed, it would seem wise not to allow someone to change
|
||
|
|
your words, especially on something that you are passionate about.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
However, I have come to adopt another perspective. What is the motivation behind
|
||
|
|
releasing content under a license that permits modification (that is, the
|
||
|
|
creation of derivative works)? Often, the primary reason is to allow others to
|
||
|
|
improve upon the content or to modify it to suit their particular needs. To
|
||
|
|
prevent others from locking down those changes---preventing others from having
|
||
|
|
the same rights as they did---many will often release their works under licenses
|
||
|
|
that require that all derivatives be released under the same terms. In the case
|
||
|
|
of Creative Commons, this is called ["ShareAlike"][2], which is motivated by
|
||
|
|
GNU's copyright hack called [copyleft][3] (popularized by the [GNU General
|
||
|
|
Public License][4]).
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
For [free software][5] advocates, the question of whether or not to permit
|
||
|
|
modification is generally not even raised---it is a necessity. Software serves a
|
||
|
|
functional purpose: Prohibiting modification could prevent users from altering
|
||
|
|
the software in ways that they may find useful and could be used to exert
|
||
|
|
control over the users. Software does stuff. Software can control what the user
|
||
|
|
can and cannot do.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Creative works are often considered in a different light. Like software, they
|
||
|
|
are indeed useful---they can be tools to learn, to entertain, etc. However, does
|
||
|
|
prohibiting modification do any harm? In the case of [documentation for free
|
||
|
|
software][6], yes---documentation is very important and can make the difference
|
||
|
|
between highly useful software and impenetrable software. Free documentation
|
||
|
|
ensures that, as the software grows, the documentation can grow with it. Since
|
||
|
|
the documentation for many projects is often scarce or poorly written (great
|
||
|
|
computer hackers are not necessarily great language hackers), the freedom to
|
||
|
|
modify the documentation is a necessity.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Then what of texts that have nothing to do with a free software project? Texts
|
||
|
|
that serve as an educational resource of any kind would benefit from being free
|
||
|
|
just as a free software project would---experts could contribute, teachers could
|
||
|
|
alter it to suit their particular teaching style or their classroom setting,
|
||
|
|
etc. But what of texts that exist purely as opinion pieces?
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
I'm not sure there's such a thing as a "pure" opinion piece, unless it is
|
||
|
|
utter garbage.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
An author would do well to substantiate their opinion with appropriate
|
||
|
|
references (though often times, this is not the case). With those
|
||
|
|
references (or lack thereof) comes the need to connect them to the content---the
|
||
|
|
author must explain his or her opinion. This explanation is educational, even if
|
||
|
|
the reader does not agree with the opinion. Perhaps the reader wishes to use the
|
||
|
|
opinion piece as a resource, but notices that it is lacking in some respect.
|
||
|
|
Should they not be able to improve it, perhaps to even further the author's
|
||
|
|
point? Or, perhaps the opinion piece could be extended to the contrary---to
|
||
|
|
prove additional references to either make it neutral or even work against the
|
||
|
|
author's original opinion. Even though this may not be what the author wants,
|
||
|
|
this is still a useful derivation of the original work.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
As an example, consider this very post. This is clearly an opinion piece---I
|
||
|
|
have made the choice to release my content under a Creative Commons license and
|
||
|
|
I am substantiating my opinion in the hope that others may gain insight and
|
||
|
|
possibly even choose the same path for their own creative works. What if someone
|
||
|
|
wished to present this article to a group of individuals---maybe in the
|
||
|
|
workplace---but found my "garbage" comment to be unnecessarily harsh? What
|
||
|
|
personal harm would I incur if they were to remove that statement? However, what
|
||
|
|
if they wished to go further by replacing all references to "free software"
|
||
|
|
with references to "open source"---a term which I [reject][7]? Well, this
|
||
|
|
could potentially affect my image, depending on the group's philosophy. What
|
||
|
|
now?
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
There are a few important points to note from this. Firstly, the license
|
||
|
|
mandates that:
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
> If You Distribute, or Publicly Perform the Work or any Adaptations or
|
||
|
|
> Collections, You must, unless a request has been made pursuant to Section
|
||
|
|
> 4(a), keep intact all copyright notices for the Work and provide, reasonable
|
||
|
|
> to the medium or means You are utilizing: (i) the name of the Original Author
|
||
|
|
> (or pseudonym, if applicable) if supplied, and/or if the Original Author
|
||
|
|
> and/or Licensor designate another party or parties (e.g., a sponsor institute,
|
||
|
|
> publishing entity, journal) for attribution ("Attribution Parties") in
|
||
|
|
> Licensor's copyright notice, terms of service or by other reasonable means,
|
||
|
|
> the name of such party or parties; (ii) the title of the Work if supplied;
|
||
|
|
> (iii) to the extent reasonably practicable, the URI, if any, that Licensor
|
||
|
|
> specifies to be associated with the Work, unless such URI does not refer to
|
||
|
|
> the copyright notice or licensing information for the Work; and (iv) ,
|
||
|
|
> consistent with Ssection [sic] 3(b), in the case of an Adaptation, a credit
|
||
|
|
> identifying the use of the Work in the Adaptation (e.g., "French translation
|
||
|
|
> of the Work by Original Author," or "Screenplay based on original Work by
|
||
|
|
> Original Author").[8]
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
In plain English---you must provide attribution to the original author and
|
||
|
|
indicate that the work has been modified from the original. Furthermore:
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
> The credit required by this Section 4(c) may be implemented in any reasonable
|
||
|
|
> manner; provided, however, that in the case of a Adaptation or Collection, at
|
||
|
|
> a minimum such credit will appear, if a credit for all contributing authors of
|
||
|
|
> the Adaptation or Collection appears, then as part of these credits and in a
|
||
|
|
> manner at least as prominent as the credits for the other contributing
|
||
|
|
> authors.[8]
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
It would therefore be appropriate to assume that an author of a derivate work
|
||
|
|
will, in good faith, make clear attribution. Should this not be the case, then
|
||
|
|
what is to say that the author would not have simply modified a work which is
|
||
|
|
not licensed to permit modifications?
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
The next point is another simple one: Under United States copyright law, the
|
||
|
|
[fair use doctrine][9] permits limited use of a copyrighted work without prior
|
||
|
|
consent from the author; it is this doctrine that allows, for example, authors
|
||
|
|
and journalists to quote portions of other works to report on or back up their
|
||
|
|
arguments. This means that, even if the license did not permit, an author could
|
||
|
|
still incorporate *portions* of my work to support their own arguments or agenda,
|
||
|
|
regardless of whether or not I may agree with it. This segues into the final
|
||
|
|
point.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Who am I to [dictate others opinions][10]? It would not be right of me to limit
|
||
|
|
one's freedom simply because they violate my own personal opinions or beliefs.
|
||
|
|
Therefore, if this is one condition under which I would decide to restrict my
|
||
|
|
creative works, then that reason should be immediately dismissed. This means
|
||
|
|
that---within the context of my previous example---if someone wanted to alter
|
||
|
|
all the references to "free software" in my work to adapt it to their own
|
||
|
|
personal style, then they should be permitted to do so. Such a work is no longer
|
||
|
|
my own: They must clearly state that it has been altered from the original.
|
||
|
|
Hopefully readers take notice of that. My works are always published on my own
|
||
|
|
personal website where the originals can be found; with today's search engines,
|
||
|
|
such a task is trivial. If someone neglects to do so---and I do understand that
|
||
|
|
many will neglect to do so---then they have not made an informed opinion on the
|
||
|
|
material.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Another minor point would be that, for the majority of my works, it is unlikely
|
||
|
|
that anyone will be making any sort of alteration.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
As such, I find that I have little ground to stand on should I attempt to
|
||
|
|
rationalize a more restrictive license. Any remaining arguments, such as "what
|
||
|
|
if they sell your content or modify it only slightly and are given more credit
|
||
|
|
for the work than they deserve?" are already covered by the free software
|
||
|
|
philosophy can may be easily adopted here.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
[1]: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#OpinionLicenses
|
||
|
|
[2]: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/
|
||
|
|
[3]: https://www.gnu.org/copyleft/copyleft.html
|
||
|
|
[4]: https://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html
|
||
|
|
[5]: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
|
||
|
|
[6]: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-doc.html
|
||
|
|
[7]: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html
|
||
|
|
[8]: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode
|
||
|
|
[9]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use
|
||
|
|
[10]: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/programs-must-not-limit-freedom.html
|
||
|
|
|