[Foundation-l] An argument for strong copyleft

[Robert Rohde]

On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 1:40 PM, Nikola Smolenski <smolensk at eunet.yu> wrote:

> On Monday 07 April 2008 15:00:20 Anthony wrote:
> > We have two independent works, an article and a photo, and we have a
> > newspaper article which is, at least in my opinion, a derivative of
> > both works.  Now I agree that it's unrealistic to expect Andrew to
> > give away his copyright.  He probably makes a living writing newspaper
> > articles.  On the other hand, most Bill's would find it unfair that
> > Carrie gets to profit of his work without giving anything in return.
> > This is the reason the Noncommercial-only license (which I dislike) is
> > so popular.
> >
> > But there's a simple solution.  Carrie can simply buy a license from
> > Bill to use the photo in her newspaper article.
> >
> > For those Bill's who don't mind Carrie's using their work in this way,
> > there's always CC-BY or some other non-copylefted free license.
>
> As a free content creator, I have to say that this situation would not be
> satisfactory for me.
>
> First, I don't think that my work deserves to influence other, unrelated
> work;
> especially as I personally do employ fair use when I can and don't think
> that
> I should request more stringent criteria in regard to my work.
>
> Second, I don't want to release my work under CC-BY because I do want
> enhancements to my work to be freely reusable.
>
> Third, because I have had experiences with people wanting to use free
> contents
> in their works; even GFDL was too much, and so would this requirement be.



Hello, my name is Bill.  Both in principle and in practice, the scenario
that Anthony describes is exactly what I strive for with my images.  I do
believe that my copyleft work should influence other people's actions.

I see copyleft as a form of barter:  I give you free content, but you are
obligated to give me (and usually the rest of the world) something back in
exchange by way of creating more free content.  For me, that doesn't just
mean derivative images, but whenever your publication benefits materially by
including the work I created, you should "pay" for that by giving something
back.  So, yes, I believe that the copyleft on images should influence text,
and vice versa, whenever they are combined in a single, interdependent work
that you are expecting to profit from.  (Incidentally, I also allow lots of
NC use, with or without copyleft.)

If I want my work to unrestricted, I can easily choose to make it that way,
and sometimes do.  However, I am not eager to grant the commercial
publishing industry the ability to profit from my work while being under no
obligation to give anything back.

As with Carrie in Anthony's example, if the publisher is unable or unwilling
to create free content, but still really wants to use my work, then we can
talk about a fee or some other form of compensation.

I know a lot of people think of "free content" in terms close to public
domain content, i.e. free for any use, anytime, by any one.  However the
"free content" movement as expressed through copyleft is really something
different.  Perhaps it shouldn't even be called "free" at all.  The reality
is that copyleft, by its viral nature, creates a payment-in-kind economy.
You get something without financial cost, but you also have to give
something away.

Not everyone desires to manage "free content" that way, and that is fine.
Some people believe much more strongly in a gift-economy, where free content
comes with no expectation of reciprocity.  That is your right.  However it
is important that our diversity of opinions be able to coexist, and that the
author's intent be clearly expressed by whatever system of licenes is put in
place.  The most important audience is the reusers who need to clearly
understand requirements and expectations being placed on them.  Beyond that,
it is their choice whether to use free content or not.

Right now the GFDL, in particular, is largely deficient when it comes to
clearly explaining obligations to reusers.  Especially when it comes to
combining works.  Clearly this is an area that is now receiving a lot of
attention, so hopefully it will be greatly improved in the future.

As has been discussed on a variety of forums, the free content community
probably needs to develop some form of a clear differentiation between a
Strong Copyleft that attaches liberally across media (i.e. copyleft
attaching to the text of a newspaper article using a copylefted image), and
a Weak Copyleft that deals only with derivatives in the same media.
Obviously, I favor the former, but the statements from Nikola and Pharos
seems to favor the latter.  It would be nice to have licenses that clearly
addressed these two types of sentiment that seem to be common in the
community.

-Robert Rohde