5 ms·

> Expressing disapproval of the use of AI through open licenses. Those licenses aren’t very open. Like the Creative Commons non commercial licenses.

LordDragonfang 3y ago
I mean, while CC-NC isn't fully "open" by software nerd standards, it's still very open by general copyright standards.
- andy99 3y ago
  I think telling someone how they can use something is pretty much the most egregious restriction possible, other than not actually sharing it. Limiting uses is certainly enough to firmly disqualify a license from being open.
  - LordDragonfang 3y ago
    Talking about anything to do with licensing with free software folks is extremely frustrating because of statements like this. First off, telling someone how they can use something is what a license is. Even the GPL is defined in those terms, and moreover, the GPL tells you how you can use the code it protects! ("If you use this code, you must release the source" is functionally as much of a constraint as "if you use this work, it can't be for profit", the difference is ideological, not categorical) The only function of bringing that up is making weird black-and-white absolutist arguments where "any license which does not grant every possible use is not open" arguments. That just doesn't match with reality - all variants of CC are much more open than standard copyright. Also, an extremely important point that is often overlooked in these arguments: your statement is actually false, since it does not tell someone how they can use a work, only how they can use it under that license. In other words, if you want to profit off of someone else's work, you're still free to contact the author and receive license to do so.
    - CaptainFever 3y ago
      It's important to remember that the true ideological goal of the free culture movement is the four freedoms. Licenses are just the means to that end. So of course we would bring up ideological arguments and differenciate between restrictions that move us closer to the goal, and restrictions that do not, because that is the whole point.
      - LordDragonfang 3y ago
        But see, that's the thing! The argument you're trying to make is not the one you're presenting! That object-level objection does not actually support your meta-level argument. As I pointed out, the fundamental premise of the GPL is not "there can be no restrictions in license to use a work", it's "the only acceptable restriction is restricting others from restricting their own work". Which, itself, is a laudable goal, but it's an argument that fs folks instinctively shy away from - because they know it invites the immediate counter, "if you admit there are acceptable exceptions, why is that the only one?" And that's the rub, because the next question is, "So why is it wrong for someone to want to see the fruit of their own labor when someone else is profiting off of it"? Especially when they themselves are offering their own work to the commons, free of charge. If someone is contributing to the freedom of information, they should be able to rest easy knowing it is not being gated by someone else. Of freedom of Use, Redistribution, Study, or Modification, it can only be said to weakly violate "Use", and even then, only when you refuse to compensate the original author. (Art is also unlike software; you can't "use" a painting to manage your payroll in a copyright-prohibited way) (Also interesting that you bring up the "four freedoms," because one of FDR's four freedoms - those that inspired Stallman's list - is "freedom from want". And living under capitalism, under copyright, one of the chief ways want is addressed is by profiting off selling your own intellectual labor. If you know that you'll get any profits that are generated directly from your work, it makes it much easier to surrender it to the common good.) You don't make the honest argument, because you know that changing the argument from "no exceptions in the terms of Use" to "only this exception" becomes an argument of "so where do we draw the line", which is much more complicated than a simple black and white.
        3y ago
asylteltine 3y ago
Banning or limiting commercial use is still absolutely open source whether you like it or not. You can see the source, it’s open source. We don’t need everything to be a socialist utopia hippie fest
- codetrotter 3y ago
  None of the Creative Commons licenses are particularly great for source code. CC licenses are best suited for photos, videos, audio, etc.
  - fwip 3y ago
    Except for CC0, which is basically just "I declare that this is in the public domain."
- speedgoose 3y ago
  You describe source available, not open source.

LordDragonfang 3y ago

I mean, while CC-NC isn't fully "open" by software nerd standards, it's still very open by general copyright standards.

andy99 3y ago
I think telling someone how they can use something is pretty much the most egregious restriction possible, other than not actually sharing it. Limiting uses is certainly enough to firmly disqualify a license from being open.
- LordDragonfang 3y ago
  Talking about anything to do with licensing with free software folks is extremely frustrating because of statements like this. First off, telling someone how they can use something is what a license is. Even the GPL is defined in those terms, and moreover, the GPL tells you how you can use the code it protects! ("If you use this code, you must release the source" is functionally as much of a constraint as "if you use this work, it can't be for profit", the difference is ideological, not categorical) The only function of bringing that up is making weird black-and-white absolutist arguments where "any license which does not grant every possible use is not open" arguments. That just doesn't match with reality - all variants of CC are much more open than standard copyright. Also, an extremely important point that is often overlooked in these arguments: your statement is actually false, since it does not tell someone how they can use a work, only how they can use it under that license. In other words, if you want to profit off of someone else's work, you're still free to contact the author and receive license to do so.
  - CaptainFever 3y ago
    It's important to remember that the true ideological goal of the free culture movement is the four freedoms. Licenses are just the means to that end. So of course we would bring up ideological arguments and differenciate between restrictions that move us closer to the goal, and restrictions that do not, because that is the whole point.
    - LordDragonfang 3y ago
      But see, that's the thing! The argument you're trying to make is not the one you're presenting! That object-level objection does not actually support your meta-level argument. As I pointed out, the fundamental premise of the GPL is not "there can be no restrictions in license to use a work", it's "the only acceptable restriction is restricting others from restricting their own work". Which, itself, is a laudable goal, but it's an argument that fs folks instinctively shy away from - because they know it invites the immediate counter, "if you admit there are acceptable exceptions, why is that the only one?" And that's the rub, because the next question is, "So why is it wrong for someone to want to see the fruit of their own labor when someone else is profiting off of it"? Especially when they themselves are offering their own work to the commons, free of charge. If someone is contributing to the freedom of information, they should be able to rest easy knowing it is not being gated by someone else. Of freedom of Use, Redistribution, Study, or Modification, it can only be said to weakly violate "Use", and even then, only when you refuse to compensate the original author. (Art is also unlike software; you can't "use" a painting to manage your payroll in a copyright-prohibited way) (Also interesting that you bring up the "four freedoms," because one of FDR's four freedoms - those that inspired Stallman's list - is "freedom from want". And living under capitalism, under copyright, one of the chief ways want is addressed is by profiting off selling your own intellectual labor. If you know that you'll get any profits that are generated directly from your work, it makes it much easier to surrender it to the common good.) You don't make the honest argument, because you know that changing the argument from "no exceptions in the terms of Use" to "only this exception" becomes an argument of "so where do we draw the line", which is much more complicated than a simple black and white.
      - 3y ago

asylteltine 3y ago

Banning or limiting commercial use is still absolutely open source whether you like it or not. You can see the source, it’s open source. We don’t need everything to be a socialist utopia hippie fest

codetrotter 3y ago
None of the Creative Commons licenses are particularly great for source code. CC licenses are best suited for photos, videos, audio, etc.
- fwip 3y ago
  Except for CC0, which is basically just "I declare that this is in the public domain."
speedgoose 3y ago
You describe source available, not open source.