5 ms·

The problem with most licenses is that they require that the license be distributed with the content that is licensed. I don't want to force people to do anythi

The problem with most licenses is that they require that the license be distributed with the content that is licensed. I don't want to force people to do anything. I want it to be as if copyright doesn't exist.

Pet_Ant 5y ago
By default copyright exists so by doing nothing you are copyrighting your work and preventing people who want to be in the legal clear from being able to use it (OSS games for example). The best you can do is watermark your art with CC0 and/or include the license or a link to it in the file metadata. But pretending we are living in a post-copyright utopia severely limits the reach of your work.
- 683686285 5y ago
  I'm not pretending copyright doesn't exist, but I want other people to be able to interact with my work as if copyright and other forms of IP didn't exist. There doesn't seem to be a perfect way to achieve this. The problem with CC0 (and I believe the reason OSI doesn't approve of it) is that it says: > No trademark or patent rights held by Affirmer are waived, abandoned, surrendered, licensed or otherwise affected by this document. Whereas many licenses can be interpreted as an implied patent license[0]. I guess adding an additional declaration saying something like this could fix that: > All trademark and patent rights associated with this work are permanently waived. But I have no idea if that would work and it's frustrating that there is no simple way of opting out of intellectual 'property' ownership all together. The closest, at least when it comes to software may be 0BSD considering large corporations like Google are willing to accept it. [0]: https://opensource.stackexchange.com/a/11653 https://opensource.stackexchange.com/a/11653
  - withinboredom 5y ago
    So what do you do if a company contacts you for a commercial license? If the rights are permanently waived, how do you offer a different license?
    - fluoridation 5y ago
      The right copyright gives is a monopoly on distribution and on granting of conditional permission to distribute. The right is the monopoly itself, not the ability to do it. If you waive that right, you're saying that anyone is allowed to distribute and to grant permission to distribute. An author of a work in the public domain can license their work to someone under any license -- as can anyone else.
- goodpoint 5y ago
  > pretending we are living in a post-copyright utopia severely limits the reach of your work And severely limits the freedom of end users! GPLv3 protects around tivoization and proprietarization. Other licenses do not. The net effect is that end users are unable to benefit from the openness.
  - 683686285 5y ago
    Freedom to me is whatever exists in the absence of coercion. GPL licenses depends on coercion, so they cannot produce freedom as I see it. To illustrate this, imagine an alternative universe where violence is impossible. In this universe IP as we know it including copyleft licenses couldn't exist as violence or credible threats of violence by a state (or similar entity) is required for enforcement. I want to get as close to this hypothetical universe as possible by avoiding everything that depends on violence and coercion as far as possible.
    - Seirdy 5y ago
      The only thing that the GPL family prevents is coercion, effectively reaching a local minima of coercion-by-others as a function of coercion-by-vendor. Granting the freedom to coerce doesn't reduce coercion.
      - 683686285 5y ago
        Not distributing source code is not coercion. GPL forces people to do work in exchange for a promise that they will not be subject to volience, that's coercion.
    - seba_dos1 5y ago
      You're right that in a universe where everyone grants their end users necessary freedoms and don't use coercion to limit those rights, GPL would be completely unnecessary. Until that happens, coercing people to stop further coercion is the best thing we have.
      - 5y ago
michaelmrose 5y ago
Then you need to lobby your government for copyright not to exist.
- 683686285 5y ago
  I would if I could, but I don't have any power over any government.

Pet_Ant 5y ago

By default copyright exists so by doing nothing you are copyrighting your work and preventing people who want to be in the legal clear from being able to use it (OSS games for example). The best you can do is watermark your art with CC0 and/or include the license or a link to it in the file metadata. But pretending we are living in a post-copyright utopia severely limits the reach of your work.

683686285 5y ago
I'm not pretending copyright doesn't exist, but I want other people to be able to interact with my work as if copyright and other forms of IP didn't exist. There doesn't seem to be a perfect way to achieve this. The problem with CC0 (and I believe the reason OSI doesn't approve of it) is that it says: > No trademark or patent rights held by Affirmer are waived, abandoned, surrendered, licensed or otherwise affected by this document. Whereas many licenses can be interpreted as an implied patent license[0]. I guess adding an additional declaration saying something like this could fix that: > All trademark and patent rights associated with this work are permanently waived. But I have no idea if that would work and it's frustrating that there is no simple way of opting out of intellectual 'property' ownership all together. The closest, at least when it comes to software may be 0BSD considering large corporations like Google are willing to accept it. [0]: https://opensource.stackexchange.com/a/11653 https://opensource.stackexchange.com/a/11653
- withinboredom 5y ago
  So what do you do if a company contacts you for a commercial license? If the rights are permanently waived, how do you offer a different license?
  - fluoridation 5y ago
    The right copyright gives is a monopoly on distribution and on granting of conditional permission to distribute. The right is the monopoly itself, not the ability to do it. If you waive that right, you're saying that anyone is allowed to distribute and to grant permission to distribute. An author of a work in the public domain can license their work to someone under any license -- as can anyone else.
goodpoint 5y ago
> pretending we are living in a post-copyright utopia severely limits the reach of your work And severely limits the freedom of end users! GPLv3 protects around tivoization and proprietarization. Other licenses do not. The net effect is that end users are unable to benefit from the openness.
- 683686285 5y ago
  Freedom to me is whatever exists in the absence of coercion. GPL licenses depends on coercion, so they cannot produce freedom as I see it. To illustrate this, imagine an alternative universe where violence is impossible. In this universe IP as we know it including copyleft licenses couldn't exist as violence or credible threats of violence by a state (or similar entity) is required for enforcement. I want to get as close to this hypothetical universe as possible by avoiding everything that depends on violence and coercion as far as possible.
  - Seirdy 5y ago
    The only thing that the GPL family prevents is coercion, effectively reaching a local minima of coercion-by-others as a function of coercion-by-vendor. Granting the freedom to coerce doesn't reduce coercion.
    - 683686285 5y ago
      Not distributing source code is not coercion. GPL forces people to do work in exchange for a promise that they will not be subject to volience, that's coercion.
  - seba_dos1 5y ago
    You're right that in a universe where everyone grants their end users necessary freedoms and don't use coercion to limit those rights, GPL would be completely unnecessary. Until that happens, coercing people to stop further coercion is the best thing we have.
    - 5y ago

michaelmrose 5y ago

Then you need to lobby your government for copyright not to exist.

683686285 5y ago
I would if I could, but I don't have any power over any government.