CC addresses the production of culture, the GPL address the production of code. They are two very different intentions, two very different "things".
I'm sure that makes a great debate. I'm not sure they are so different or if you can ever draw a line between data and code in a truly meaningful way. Pour me te differences in the licences are about simplicity and language, CC being something artists can grok right away.
I'm quite happy that CC works for me for the things I want it to, granting rights for music and letting me decide what can be remixed or merely copied and what it can be used for. If you write code or patches that fall into what you believe is a grey area you're free to choose mix and match licences as you wish, GPL or BSD for code if appropriate, CC non -erivative or CC sharealike. At the end of te day never be afraid to write your own licence parts simply stating your wishes, on a per file basis if you really need to, or pulling bits from licences or supplementing them with your own stuff. Just think it through, be clear and honest about what you want to grant or restrict and try to make life as simple as possible for the end user or else they will be put off using your work.
Andy
And, despite being a FLOSS advocate and avid FLOSS programmer since many years, I take particular offense to this article:
http://www.metamute.org/?q=en/Freedoms-Standard-Advanced
Mako Hill only wishes to extend the naive tautology of the word "freedom", and knock CC for not having an ideology that is as simple and total as the GPL.
best -august.
PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
On Jun 15, 2006, at 1:35 PM, padawan12@obiwannabe.co.uk wrote:
CC addresses the production of culture, the GPL address the production of code. They are two very different intentions, two very different "things".
I'm sure that makes a great debate. I'm not sure they are so
different or if you can ever draw a line between data and code in a
truly meaningful way. Pour me te differences in the licences are
about simplicity and language, CC being something artists can grok
right away.I'm quite happy that CC works for me for the things I want it to,
granting rights for music and letting me decide what can be remixed
or merely copied and what it can be used for. If you write code or
patches that fall into what you believe is a grey area you're free
to choose mix and match licences as you wish, GPL or BSD for code
if appropriate, CC non -erivative or CC sharealike. At the end of
te day never be afraid to write your own licence parts simply
stating your wishes, on a per file basis if you really need to, or
pulling bits from licences or supplementing them with your own
stuff. Just think it through, be clear and honest about what you
want to grant or restrict and try to make life as simple as
possible for the end user or else they will be put off using your
work. Andy
Writing your own licenses makes enforcement even more expensive that
enforcing a CC license since there wouldn't be any precedents or body
of knowledge pertaining to that license.
It comes down to this: if someone with a lot more money that you
wants to violate your CC license, they probably can and will without
much hassle to them. The GNU GPL is a different story, nobody has
even tried to fight the GNU GPL, even large corporations because they
would have no case against Eben Moglen in court.
Even worse, CC licenses add a cost to the small people that most
people are trying to encourage. If someone is just starting out and
they want to sample a song, they have to spend a fair amount of
effort figuring out all the CC clauses and what they allow someone to
do. This is non-trivial, especially since there are so many possible
clauses. This is a real cost that mostly affects the small guy.
With the GNU GPL, its dead simple: do whatever you want with it as
long as you distribute any changes or additions also. That's why I
have been thinking about releasing everything I do, music, sound
installations, whatever, under the GNU GPL.
.hc
And, despite being a FLOSS advocate and avid FLOSS programmer
since many years, I take particular offense to this article:http://www.metamute.org/?q=en/Freedoms-Standard-Advanced
Mako Hill only wishes to extend the naive tautology of the word
"freedom", and knock CC for not having an ideology that is as simple and total as
the GPL.best -august.
PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/ listinfo/pd-list
If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the
problem. - Eldridge Cleaver
Hi HC,
Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
With the GNU GPL, its dead simple: do whatever you want with it as long as you distribute any changes or additions also. That's why I have been thinking about releasing everything I do, music, sound installations, whatever, under the GNU GPL.
What becomes problematic here is the use of a license designed for software applied to non-software things, like pieces of music, installations, videos, etc. There is plenty of precedent for the GNU GPL to protect software. But it is based around the idea of a "source code", which is an easily definable thing in software and a nebulous gray zone in art. What is the "source code" of your music? Is it a score? Is it the PD patch? Is it the MIDI tracker file? Is it all the samples you used? None of this is defined precisely by the GNU GPL, so it would make applying it to your art quite difficult. Not to mention the other code-specific terminology in the license that would be difficult to fix legally to non-software products. I saw the Design Science License as an attempt to deal with this problem, but it still wasn't too specific about what "source code" should be. And, AFAIK, the FSF has distanced themselves from the DSL anyway, which means they won't fight to protect your work under it. I'd also like to see something from the FSF that says they will act legally to protect non-software work under the GNU GPL. It seems like it would be outside their jurisdiction.
best, d.
On Jun 16, 2006, at 5:42 AM, derek holzer wrote:
Hi HC,
Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
With the GNU GPL, its dead simple: do whatever you want with it as
long as you distribute any changes or additions also. That's why
I have been thinking about releasing everything I do, music, sound
installations, whatever, under the GNU GPL.What becomes problematic here is the use of a license designed for
software applied to non-software things, like pieces of music,
installations, videos, etc. There is plenty of precedent for the
GNU GPL to protect software. But it is based around the idea of a
"source code", which is an easily definable thing in software and a
nebulous gray zone in art. What is the "source code" of your music?
Is it a score? Is it the PD patch? Is it the MIDI tracker file? Is
it all the samples you used? None of this is defined precisely by
the GNU GPL, so it would make applying it to your art quite
difficult. Not to mention the other code-specific terminology in
the license that would be difficult to fix legally to non-software
products. I saw the Design Science License as an attempt to deal
with this problem, but it still wasn't too specific about what
"source code" should be. And, AFAIK, the FSF has distanced
themselves from the DSL anyway, which means they won't fight to
protect your work under it. I'd also like to see something from the
FSF that says they will act legally to protect non-software work
under the GNU GPL. It seems like it would be outside their
jurisdiction.
An application is a binary, and the source code is all the files
needed to produce that binary given a set of tools. A media file is
a binary, and the source code is all the files needed to produce that
binary given a set of tools.
So you can download my Solitude piece as an mp3. But you can also
download all of the files necessary to compile Solitude yourself.
Conceptually, its not difficult. The hard part is the law. For
example, if I use a sample in a GPL'ed piece, do I have to provide
the sources to that sample too? That's a bit grey, but definitely
not insurmountable.
.hc
¡El pueblo unido jamás será vencido!
On Fri, 16 Jun 2006, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
An application is a binary, and the source code is all the files needed to produce that binary given a set of tools.
What's a "binary" ?...
the word "binary" was subverted to mean "non-text" where it's assumed that text is some version of ASCII. However, so-called "binaries" contain a segment called "text" which is native machine code (just ask /usr/bin/size about it...)
if the application is a text file, then is it really an application?... and then, can that text file be the source code at once?
if the thing called source code is made of text but has been generated by some tool, is it still possible to call it source code?
What if the source file is not ASCII-based? (e.g. Microsoft's BASIC or IRCAM's jMAX)
_ _ __ ___ _____ ________ _____________ _____________________ ... | Mathieu Bouchard - tél:+1.514.383.3801 - http://artengine.ca/matju | Freelance Digital Arts Engineer, Montréal QC Canada
On Jun 19, 2006, at 8:55 PM, Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
On Fri, 16 Jun 2006, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
An application is a binary, and the source code is all the files
needed to produce that binary given a set of tools.What's a "binary" ?...
the word "binary" was subverted to mean "non-text" where it's
assumed that text is some version of ASCII. However, so-called
"binaries" contain a segment called "text" which is native machine
code (just ask /usr/bin/size about it...)if the application is a text file, then is it really an
application?... and then, can that text file be the source code at
once?if the thing called source code is made of text but has been
generated by some tool, is it still possible to call it source code?What if the source file is not ASCII-based? (e.g. Microsoft's BASIC
or IRCAM's jMAX)
That is something that does need to be worked out in the legalese,
but I am not a lawyer and I think everyone understands what I mean.
But I would like to see a license requires people to share their
sources of whatever. That's what I want to license my content under:
a GPL for everything.
.hc
"[W]e have invented the technology to eliminate scarcity, but we are
deliberately throwing it away to benefit those who profit from
scarcity." -John Gilmore
-
derek holzer -
Hans-Christoph Steiner -
Mathieu Bouchard -
padawan12＠obiwannabe.co.uk