4 ms·
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
by 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 agoI'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 agoCopyleft 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.