[Foundation-l] Anarchopedia changed its license

[Samuel Klein]

On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 1:01 AM, Milos Rancic <millosh at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 4:18 AM, Samuel Klein <meta.sj at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Yes, things are moving forward, this is true. And I will be happy to
> see free culture movement based on Tolstoy's, Kropotkin's and
> Goldman's ideas. At that time there will be no differences between
> anarchist and free culture movements.

At least in this respect...

>> >   - I even think that "free culture" term is an oxymoronic one. There is no
>> >   free culture. Every culture defines its own rules, which is lowering
>
> My meaning was a little bit deeper. It is not possible to impose some
> rules on culture by force, but cultures are defined by their own
> rules. For example, at the most of the West it is not culturally
> acceptable that one man is wearing skirt. Such man is treated as
> weird, queer or Scottish; with variety of consequences: from laughing
> to beating to death.

Ah yes.  But neither do cultures get to consciously define their own
rules; memes are shared even when the would-be arbiters of culture
deny that such a thing could happen.  You cannot unthink the idea of
"man in a skirt" once it occurs to you, and afterwards your views will
always be a bit different.



> Outside of practical
> questions (I am using AGPL whenever I write some code), the most of
> anarchists see licenses as one of the expression of state power. See
> two abstaining positions [1].
>
> [1] - http://meta.anarchopedia.org/Talk:License_change/Decision

Interesting.  Sure, "licenses" as defined by state law are an
expression of state power.  If used in the sense of "social desire of
the author regarding [re]use" without legal formalism or backing by
threats of force, it's just good manners.

It's important not to lose sight of the value of manners, in the
struggle against arbitrary constraints.

SJ