[Foundation-l] An argument for strong copyleft

[Nikola Smolenski]

On Tuesday 08 April 2008 21:05:40 geni wrote:
> On 08/04/2008, Nikola Smolenski <smolensk at eunet.yu> wrote:
>   > >  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.
> >  >
> >  > Fair use would not and cannot be impacted by any license.
> >
> > ...which has nothing to do with what I said.
>
> Really? "as I personally do employ fair use" " don't think that I
> should request more stringent criteria in regard to my work".

Yes, really. Perhaps I should clarify: fair use does not require that I 
release my work under the same conditions as the work I am fairly using; 
therefore I think I shouldn't request such a thing in a free license of 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.
> >  >
> >  > A newspaper article includeing your work may well be an enhancement.
> >
> > Actually, it would rather be the other way around (unless the article is
> > about my work).
>
> Define "about your work".

I believe it is obvious to everyone.

> >  > Okey so you think newspaper articles would be overkill. So what if all
> >  > someone does is add a caption? What if  your work is used as part of a
> >  > Collage? What if it is used as part of a flow chart? Where do you draw
> >  > the line?
> >
> > I do not draw the line.
>
> Then you cannot object to where other draw it.

Yes I can. I just did.

> >I am aware that there are use cases that are
> >  inbetween. Yet most of the cases fall in two clearly separate
> > categories: one for which I do want the enhancement to my work to be
> > freely reusable, and one for which I am content with my work illustrating
> > an unrelated work.
>
> Meaningless since you will not define which is which.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuum_fallacy

> > No, they are in fact rather above it. A GFDL image does not require that
> > you release text that includes it under GFDL.
>
> RMS would appear to differ which is a bit of a problem since even if
> you did manage to win a court case (which I doubt) RMS can change the
> license so you wouldn't in future.

Link?

> In any case the requirement to release a work under a free license is
> pretty minor compared to the requirement to include a full copy of the
> license and an interesting set of disclaimers.

No, in most cases it is a much more restrictive requirement.