"If it's not KopyLeft, it's not Discordian"

[hooplala]

I consider everything "Discordian" I have ever written as kopyleft, however, if I found something I knew was mine somewhere and it was altered, or someone else claimed they wrote it I would be HELLA PISSED, and they would truly know the wrath of the Hoopla. 

[Phineas T. Poxwattle]

maybe you shouldn't be using Kopyleft then?

because marking it (K) kind of grants the right to remix and reuse it. Someone with common courtesy would still credit you, and only a shitfuck would plagerize. But if you're not comfortable with people altering your work, don't mark it (K).

[Cain]

http://creativecommons.org/license/

[hooplala]

maybe you shouldn't be using Kopyleft then?

because marking it (K) kind of grants the right to remix and reuse it. Someone with common courtesy would still credit you, and only a shitfuck would plagerize. But if you're not comfortable with people altering your work, don't mark it (K).

Where does it say that's what Kopyleft means?  I was under the impression it mean to distribute freely.

[hooplala]

http://creativecommons.org/license/

That's interesting Cain... perhaps I will use that in the future.

[Cain]

http://creativecommons.org/license/

That's interesting Cain... perhaps I will use that in the future.

I keep meaning to put it on my blog, but never get around to it.  I know it has no legal standing...but it at least indicates the author's wishes and desires for the work in question.

Also:

[Rococo Modem Basilisk]

It is a bit murky. I've always interpreted "all rights reversed" as "public domain", it's just that those spags Mal and Omar didn't have that word yet. But yeah, it's not quite so clear.

The kopyleft statement of the PD is moot.  At the time, if you didn't actually say copyrighted you had no copyright, and copylefts legal status is based on being able to claim copyright if somebody violates the terms of copyleft.

And they very much had the term public domain, thats an old proper legal definition.  Kopyleft was unique.  The very concept of copyleft may be the biggest impact Hill and Thornley had on our society.  One day I will track down Stallman, give him a free beer, and try to get the truth out of him if he had any contact with discordians or the literature before '83, or if it really did spring fully formed out of his head.

Already did that. Stallman said he heard about Kopyleft while he was first working on the GPL because one of his friends thought it was equally absurd. I think Richard was lying, because he said it was a freind. 

I got the impression that RMS got jaked. That certainly fits with my model of RMS and my model of MIT.



I might argue that everything discordian IS (K), pragmatically speaking, whether or not it's marked as (K). Discordians aren't necessarily ones to give a shit about whether or not somebody else uses their shit, nor are they necessarily ones to worry endlessly over copyright law. I am sure that if any of us find something awesome enough to share, we will share it based on whether or not we want to share it and whether or not we think it's worth sharing, not based solely on whether or not it says "all rights reserved" and "do not photocopy". That may factor in, of course, but we recognize that it's a factor that we choose to in.

[Phineas T. Poxwattle]

I'm beginning to think it'd be nice to have an agreed-upon definition of Kopyleft, because clearly people are offering and protecting different rights with the same stamp.



This is repost, but here's Syn's thoughts on Kopyleft, care of poee.co.uk -----

KopyLeft - All Rights Reversed.

"Those who want information to be free as a matter of principle should create some information and make it free." - Nicholas Petreley

All quotes and images from other sources are copyright their respective owners, but any content original to this document is open source, unless specifically stated otherwise. Do with it what you like, but please attribute properly, even if you do not agree with the KopyLeft principle.

KopyLeft ensures the widest dissemination of information. We disagree with the way that copyright and patent law in the United States and around the world is unceasingly modified and broadened due to lobbying by corporations such as Disney and organizations such as the MPAA. It is ludicrous and inexcusable to equate copyright infringement with terrorism, as MPAA president Jack Valenti did, and we want no part of that mindset.

Copyright laws were originally created to ensure that creators benefited from their works, but current laws favor publishers and corporations, not the individual artist.

Public domain allows works to become integral parts of other works – Alice in Wonderland is a good example. It has been borrowed from by thousands of artists for thousands of reasons, and because of this, the story has lived on and grown with us to the point of becoming archetypical. This is not possible with works that are still under copyright for obvious reasons.

In the information age, our cultural heritage has gone global. Scheherazade’s work is almost as much a part of our cultural heritage as Shakespeare and Carroll. Innovations and enhancements on all of their works enrich the scope and power of the original to inform our global culture and provide a familiar framework for the innovator to work within.

For Eris’ sake, even weather data is under strict copyright – the National Weather Service is limited on what weather data it is allowed to provide free on its website, since the private sector owns pieces of the information.

I find it especially disappointing that the company that has benefited most from information in the public domain is leading the fight to keep their versions of those public domain works under strict copyright. Creators should certainly profit from their works, but when the creator and their spouse are dead, what right does a corporation have to the intellectual property, especially for such an extended amount of time? Obviously, the answer to this is that they have the right of political influence and graft in the form of campaign contributions.

Since we can do nothing about these misguided souls, we have KopyLefted our material. It isn’t Shakespeare, but it’s the best we can do. What do you think of that, Petreley?

[hooplala]

I don't think anything in there contradicted what I wanted done with my work.

It's one thing for someone to write a story featuring 'Hoopla' or 'Captain Thundermug' or 'YoYo Forgrave' in other situations, and quite a different thing for someone to take my 'Alternate Snub #5' and decide that maybe Eris should blow everyone under the table in the middle of the story.

[Phineas T. Poxwattle]

It appears to me that Syn is using the terms "public domain" and "kopyleft" interchangably.

What I'm saying is that if you've marked 'Alternate Snub #5' as Kopyleft, I can publish a version in which all the characters are talking penises (or whatever). I think that's well within the spirit of Kopyleft whether I asked you for permission or not, whether you like the new version or not.

this is repost too, but here's the "No License" description at uncyclopedia.com, which I think is also in the spirit of Kopyleft:

Licensed under absolutely nothing. Have a fucking field day. Abuse this for your own sick pleasures.    
I am content releasing my work completely to the public without conservative, territorial, and possessive need to claim some sort of stake in it. I do not need thousands of cleverly written loophole-"some rights reserved" licenses, nor do I need to debate about the superiority of any of them, rather, I toss the entire equation out the window and render it effectively useless. I fully realise that a man in El Salvador could profit wildly from my efforts and gain the millions of dollars I never did, and could theoretically hunt down every copy and burn it, leaving him as the sole distributor; however, this does not offend me, rather, I allow all to be shared, taking the risk and fully knowing the potential repercussions, rather than let the menace that is copyright conquer yet another soul.

[hooplala]

So, you believe it would be within the spirit of kopyleft for someone to post "Alternate Snub #5" and say it was written by Hoopla, and then have the entire content of the story to consist solely of the word "Diarrhea"?

I just want to be clear.

[Phineas T. Poxwattle]

it would be rude as fuck, but I believe that's in the spirit of Public Domain, yeah. Whether Kopyleft equals Public Domain or not is still debatable. Many people do equate (K) with Public Domain, so it's plausable that a (K) work can be used in that way.



just like how since Lewis Carroll's been dead for over a century, I can now publish a book called "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland" and fill it with pictures of my cock. Nobody's going to sue me (except the legislator's office I leave it in).



actually, is misattribution legal under public domain? I don't actually know. Like could I publish "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland by Lewis Carroll" and fill it with dongs with no legal reprecussions?

[hooplala]

Well, that's patently ridiculous.  Clearly I have completely misunderstood every aspect of kopyleft.


Now I have to spend the weekend attempting to delete everything Discordian I have ever written from the internet.  That will be difficult on boards I've been banned from.

[AFK]

it would be rude as fuck, but I believe that's in the spirit of Public Domain, yeah. Whether Kopyleft equals Public Domain or not is still debatable. Many people do equate (K) with Public Domain, so it's plausable that a (K) work can be used in that way.



just like how since Lewis Carroll's been dead for over a century, I can now publish a book called "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland" and fill it with pictures of my cock. Nobody's going to sue me except the legislator's office I leave it in.



actually, is misattribution legal under public domain? I don't actually know. Like could I publish "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland by Lewis Carroll" and fill it with dongs with no legal reprecussions?

I have no legal basis for it but my gut tells me no.  

In a way, I would think you might be able to make an argument that it was slander.  Because you are essentially putting words into someone's mouth and attributing an inaccurate writing character to an author.  

I mean, I would think Anne Rice would be pretty ticked off if someone swapped "Interview With a Vampire" with the text of Anne Coulter's latest bowel eruption.  

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

So, you believe it would be within the spirit of kopyleft for someone to post "Alternate Snub #5" and say it was written by Hoopla, and then have the entire content of the story to consist solely of the word "Diarrhea"?

I just want to be clear.

I think it would be in the spirit of Kopyleft. IE "Do As Thou Will is the Whole of The (K)"

Of course, in the US, Alternate Snub #5 is Copyright by Baron Von Hoopla (a pseudonym for *insert author here*). Thus if someone took your work and turned it into talking penises, you could nail them under US Copyright law.

Ironically, that means "Sue as You Will is the Whole of The Law"

 

Long way to go for the pun... I know