5 ms·

Gossiping Commons

82 points by stared 7y ago

nalesnik3000 7y ago
Does it mean that we can officially cancel social media?
- Nasrudith 7y ago
  It will work out like when Puritans canceled gossip and succeeding generations lacked it entirely.
SQueeeeeL 7y ago
This sort of reminds me of those copy pastes people would put on their Facebook walls claiming that they had no right to their photos. Are facts even license-able the same way a formula or code would be...
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- carlinmack 7y ago
  Wiki data has decided "no" to your question, all contributions are under CC0
- carlinmack 7y ago
  Wiki data has decided "no" to your question, all contributions are under CC0 (functionally WikiData only stores raw 'facts')
  - jagged-chisel 7y ago
    you can edit and delete comments with errors (within the allowed time)
Nasrudith 7y ago
Even knowing the April Fool's origins I can't help but interpret it as a Discordian style satire of both copyright for trying to claim exclusivity and copyleft for going from undermining the previous to its own social contract. I am more than willing to admit that the idea may be from viewer preconceptions and overthinking as opposed to any inherent message beyond the inherently silly instructions.
- homonculus1 7y ago
  I've heard of copyleft but I'm not too familiar it. Can you explain how it's evolved into its own social contract?
  - jagged-chisel 7y ago
    Copyleft puts the traditional concept of copyright on its head. "Copyright" limits "who can make copies." If I hold copyright on a work, only I can make copies (or only I can decide who else can make copies.) Copyleft uses copyright law to enforce a different scheme, a social contract. The license, which can only be assigned by the holder of copyright on a work, insists that licensees (you, if you have access to my work which I've put under an appropriate license) must also allow copying by anyone, even when you modify my work. I don't think this is an evolution, (the parent to your comment doesn't actually claim so); I think it was the entire original intent by Stallman. What has evolved is the terms of the GPL license, attempting to keep up with changes in technology.
DoreenMichele 7y ago
"Don't say anything unless it's good. And this is good...(wink)" --- some old TV show
johnnyjukey 7y ago
Is it just the Entertainment industry?

Gossiping Commons

82 points by stared 7y ago

nalesnik3000 7y ago

Does it mean that we can officially cancel social media?

Nasrudith 7y ago
It will work out like when Puritans canceled gossip and succeeding generations lacked it entirely.

SQueeeeeL 7y ago

This sort of reminds me of those copy pastes people would put on their Facebook walls claiming that they had no right to their photos. Are facts even license-able the same way a formula or code would be...

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
carlinmack 7y ago
Wiki data has decided "no" to your question, all contributions are under CC0
carlinmack 7y ago
Wiki data has decided "no" to your question, all contributions are under CC0 (functionally WikiData only stores raw 'facts')
- jagged-chisel 7y ago
  you can edit and delete comments with errors (within the allowed time)

Nasrudith 7y ago

Even knowing the April Fool's origins I can't help but interpret it as a Discordian style satire of both copyright for trying to claim exclusivity and copyleft for going from undermining the previous to its own social contract. I am more than willing to admit that the idea may be from viewer preconceptions and overthinking as opposed to any inherent message beyond the inherently silly instructions.

homonculus1 7y ago
I've heard of copyleft but I'm not too familiar it. Can you explain how it's evolved into its own social contract?
- jagged-chisel 7y ago
  Copyleft puts the traditional concept of copyright on its head. "Copyright" limits "who can make copies." If I hold copyright on a work, only I can make copies (or only I can decide who else can make copies.) Copyleft uses copyright law to enforce a different scheme, a social contract. The license, which can only be assigned by the holder of copyright on a work, insists that licensees (you, if you have access to my work which I've put under an appropriate license) must also allow copying by anyone, even when you modify my work. I don't think this is an evolution, (the parent to your comment doesn't actually claim so); I think it was the entire original intent by Stallman. What has evolved is the terms of the GPL license, attempting to keep up with changes in technology.

DoreenMichele 7y ago

"Don't say anything unless it's good. And this is good...(wink)" --- some old TV show

johnnyjukey 7y ago

Is it just the Entertainment industry?