News:

Look at the world emptily, and it will gladly return the favor.

Main Menu

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

Started by Cramulus, February 16, 2009, 07:23:51 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Bebek Sincap Ratatosk

Quote from: Phineas Poxwattle on February 20, 2009, 04:38:29 PM
from the wikipedia entry:

QuoteCopyleft is a form of licensing and can be used to modify copyrights for works such as computer software, documents, music and art. In general, copyright law allows an author to prohibit others from reproducing, adapting, or distributing copies of the author's work. In contrast, an author may, through a copyleft licensing scheme, give every person who receives a copy of a work permission to reproduce, adapt or distribute the work as long as any resulting copies or adaptations are also bound by the same copyleft licensing scheme. A widely used and originating copyleft license is the GNU General Public License. Similar licenses are available through Creative Commons—called Share-alike.

Copyleft can also be characterized as a copyright licensing scheme in which an author surrenders some but not all rights under copyright law. Instead of allowing a work to fall completely into the public domain (where no copyright restrictions are imposed), copyleft allows an author to impose some, but not all, copyright restrictions on those who want to engage in activities that would otherwise be considered copyright infringement. Under copyleft, copyright infringement can be avoided if the would-be infringer perpetuates the same copyleft scheme. For this reason copyleft licenses are also known as "reciprocal" licenses.

While copyright law protects the rights of the creator by providing control of distribution and modification, the idea of copyleft is to grant subjective libre freedom to end users. Copyleft licenses specify clauses which explicity remove those restrictions the creator considers to not provide libre freedom to the end user.


So they're saying that the GNU GPL, Creative Commons, Share-Alike, etc, are all a type of Copyleft.
Framed like that, merely saying that your work is Kopyleft is meaningless because you haven't specified which rights you're protecting by naming a specific license.

How does this jibe with the note at the beginning of Intermittens which says
QuoteAll content (unless otherwise marked) is from / for the public domain.
?

Copyleft is not Kopyleft anyway. Copyleft is a category of licenses that provide greater rights to the public than Copyright. Kopyleft is a Discordian joke.

<i>All content (unless otherwise marked) is from / for the public domain.</i>

This, however, is a bit more interesting. In theory, 'public domain' means that there are no legal restrictions on its use.
- I don't see race. I just see cars going around in a circle.

"Back in my day, crazy meant something. Now everyone is crazy" - Charlie Manson

AFK

I would just like to throw out, that in light of this discussion, if anyone is having second thoughts on their stuff for Intermittens #3 being published, please let me know.  Because

A) I don't want to piss anyone off

and

B) It will mean less work for me to do.   :lol:
Cynicism is a blank check for failure.

Triple Zero

how about, if people really want to be sure, they use a Creative Commons license? there's six different versions to choose from, that cover pretty much all bases, and they're explained in like 3 sentences of non-lawyers speak on http://creativecommons.org/about/licenses/

they range from the really permissive "public domain except you gotta credit me" up to the most restrictive "you are free to download my stuff and give it to others, but cannot change it or remix it or sell it, and it has to keep my name on it, always", and variations in between.
Ex-Soviet Bloc Sexual Attack Swede of Tomorrow™
e-prime disclaimer: let it seem fairly unclear I understand the apparent subjectivity of the above statements. maybe.

INFORMATION SO POWERFUL, YOU ACTUALLY NEED LESS.

Bebek Sincap Ratatosk

Quote from: Triple Zero on February 20, 2009, 08:36:08 PM
how about, if people really want to be sure, they use a Creative Commons license? there's six different versions to choose from, that cover pretty much all bases, and they're explained in like 3 sentences of non-lawyers speak on http://creativecommons.org/about/licenses/

they range from the really permissive "public domain except you gotta credit me" up to the most restrictive "you are free to download my stuff and give it to others, but cannot change it or remix it or sell it, and it has to keep my name on it, always", and variations in between.

IAWTC
- I don't see race. I just see cars going around in a circle.

"Back in my day, crazy meant something. Now everyone is crazy" - Charlie Manson

Rococo Modem Basilisk

Legally speaking, public domain and copyleft are entirely separate entities, and kopyleft (to the extent that it's meaningful) is closer to copyleft minus an explicit license. Public domain means the creator will forego any rights, copyleft generally involves forgoing specific rights automatically via a license layered over the copyright, and kopyleft is precisely the same as a normal implicit copyright but with the implication that the rights, if questioned, will be similar to that granted in copyleft. This is why RMS felt the need to codify the terms of his version of a copyleft in the GPL: public domain allowed the code equivalent of the "dongs dongs dildoes dongs. love, hoopla" kind of thing, except far more legally damaging since one can be blamed for something that one didn't even know was happening. The GPL takes the good bits of public domain (anybody can change it, sell it, distribute it, etc) and removes some of the bad bits (you can't be blamed for any liabilities, no matter WHO it was who replaced the stop_being_skynet() function with a list of dirty words), and added some pragmatically disputed bits that people continue to have flamewars about to this day (viral nature, spiral energy, cocks).


I am not "full of hate" as if I were some passive container. I am a generator of hate, and my rage is a renewable resource, like sunshine.

Template

Quote from: Cramulus on February 16, 2009, 07:46:55 PM
The language (or my usage of it) is a bit tangled, so I want to draw a distinction between two usages of the word "should". I'm not saying "should = must" as in "Discordian stuff MUST be Kopyleft". I meant it more in the same way that someone might say "You shouldn't drive drunk." a proscription, not a rule.

Proscribe = prohibit.  A rule.
Prescribe = suggest.  "This is for you." <<== you want this one:  "prescription"

"Ⓚ All Rites Reversed - reprint what you like"
PD's copyright and license status is not a good example: it's got several trademark/copyright infringements within or something.

Creative Commons or GFDL or something would probably be a better choice since they're actual licenses.  Something with the Attribution requirement would be useful because we could track the history of essays after they pass through many (mental-digestive) tracts.

Not that I'd force anyone to license anything any particular way.

Requia ☣

#66
Quote from: Dr Hoopla on February 20, 2009, 04:09:21 PM
For future reference, my stuff is NOT kopyleft anymore.

You do realize that you can't actually do that?

Once you grant me rights, i keep them forever unless you stipulate in the rights agreement conditions under which they can be taken away.  So I in fact retain the entire set of kopyleft rights.

Though you never actually stated what rights I have.  So I have no idea what I have the right to do with your work, except that I have some sort of right greater than or equal to fair use.
Inflatable dolls are not recognized flotation devices.

Requia ☣

#67
I so need to write a dystopic comedy about a state where people have constitutional rights, but don't know what what rights they have, due to them being classified for national security reasons.  Somebody remind me when I'm less sleep deprived so I can decide if I really want to do it.
Inflatable dolls are not recognized flotation devices.

Mesozoic Mister Nigel

Quote from: KC on February 21, 2009, 11:57:28 AM
Quote from: Dr Hoopla on February 20, 2009, 04:09:21 PM
For future reference, my stuff is NOT kopyleft anymore.

You do realize that you can't actually do that?

Once you grant me rights, i keep them forever unless you stipulate in the rights agreement conditions under which they can be taken away.  So I in fact retain the entire set of kopyleft rights.

Though you never actually stated what rights I have.  So I have no idea what I have the right to do with your work, except that I have some sort of right greater than or equal to fair use.

I think he's saying that what he writes from here on out is not Kopyleft.

Also, I don't think it works so say "My whole body of work is Kopyleft except for those pieces I declare otherwise". I think that each piece is legally copyrighted the moment you create it, unless you specify otherwise. So if you want something to be Kopyleft or Creative Commons, you would have to specify it in writing for that specific piece.
"I'm guessing it was January 2007, a meeting in Bethesda, we got a bag of bees and just started smashing them on the desk," Charles Wick said. "It was very complicated."


hooplala

Quote from: Nigel on February 21, 2009, 04:57:24 PM
I think he's saying that what he writes from here on out is not Kopyleft.

This.
"Soon all of us will have special names" — Professor Brian O'Blivion

"Now's not the time to get silly, so wear your big boots and jump on the garbage clowns." — Bob Dylan?

"Do I contradict myself?
Very well then I contradict myself,
(I am large, I contain multitudes.)"
— Walt Whitman

The Good Reverend Roger

Quote from: Cramulus on February 16, 2009, 07:23:51 PM
How do you guys feel about this? Should all Discordian works be KopyLeft? I like the idea that if I say something sort of cool, somebody else might take it, polish it up, and use it for something really cool. I feel that once an idea leaves your mouth, it's alive in a way you can no longer control.

Well, sure.  Excuse me, I'm going to slap a new cover on F Scott Fitzgerald novels and sell them for my own profit.

Quote from: Cramulus on February 16, 2009, 07:23:51 PM
I think that this notion of this is inherent to Discordia. There's a sort of zen-buddhism implied in Kopyleft. Kopyleft forces a detachment from any territorial stake in your ideas. It forces us to communicate and entertain each other in a way where we have little to personally gain - it's communication for communication's sake. Not for the market, not for the ego, not for the benjamins.

1.  So, to be Discordian, I have to believe in, say, free stores?

2.  What the fuck does Zen Buddhism have to do with Discordianism?

Quote from: Cramulus on February 16, 2009, 07:23:51 PM
I think the Kopyleft principle is alive and well in this community. For example, we create a lot of our own channels of entertainment. We have a magazine, a radio station (coming soon!), and about a zillion pdfs, meme bombs, and miscellaneous marginalia. None of this would be possible if we weren't comfortable taking, breaking, remixing and replaying each other's work.

With permission.  That's no different than Copyright.  Nobody HAS to charge to allow people to use their material under the "regular" system.

Quote from: Cramulus on February 16, 2009, 07:23:51 PM
I think about the Meme Bomb thread, and how we have probably a half dozen "best of" collections. It's now difficult and unimportant to determine who said what. The vast majority of the meme bombs aren't creditable to a specific author without some dilligent searching. Most commonly, the meme bombs are attributed to the community - an interesting concept, to be sure! Is this ideological socialism? Is our communication better when there aren't any pissing contests about who controls what ideas?

Please note that I'm not trying to start a thread about the merits and flaws of the copyright system, or whether artists should get paid for their work. I'm interested in discussing the notion that Everything Discordian Should Be (K). What's your take on it?

I think my shit is my shit.  I post it, I normally allow people to use it, but I insist on being credited.  Does that mean I can't be a Discordian?
" It's just that Depeche Mode were a bunch of optimistic loveburgers."
- TGRR, shaming himself forever, 7/8/2017

"Billy, when I say that ethics is our number one priority and safety is also our number one priority, you should take that to mean exactly what I said. Also quality. That's our number one priority as well. Don't look at me that way, you're in the corporate world now and this is how it works."
- TGRR, raising the bar at work.

The Good Reverend Roger

Quote from: KC on February 21, 2009, 11:57:28 AM
Quote from: Dr Hoopla on February 20, 2009, 04:09:21 PM
For future reference, my stuff is NOT kopyleft anymore.

You do realize that you can't actually do that?

Once you grant me rights, i keep them forever unless you stipulate in the rights agreement conditions under which they can be taken away.  So I in fact retain the entire set of kopyleft rights.

Though you never actually stated what rights I have.  So I have no idea what I have the right to do with your work, except that I have some sort of right greater than or equal to fair use.

Equal to.

Unless you can prove you published/recorded it before he did.

" It's just that Depeche Mode were a bunch of optimistic loveburgers."
- TGRR, shaming himself forever, 7/8/2017

"Billy, when I say that ethics is our number one priority and safety is also our number one priority, you should take that to mean exactly what I said. Also quality. That's our number one priority as well. Don't look at me that way, you're in the corporate world now and this is how it works."
- TGRR, raising the bar at work.

The Good Reverend Roger

Quote from: Dr Hoopla on February 20, 2009, 04:09:21 PM
For future reference, my stuff is NOT kopyleft anymore.

Mine never was.

Fuck that.  I went through the stress that created my idea, I shat blood to put it into words, it's fucking MINE.

I'll almost always allow someone to use it, but they'd probably better ask, and they'd sure as fuck better credit me.
" It's just that Depeche Mode were a bunch of optimistic loveburgers."
- TGRR, shaming himself forever, 7/8/2017

"Billy, when I say that ethics is our number one priority and safety is also our number one priority, you should take that to mean exactly what I said. Also quality. That's our number one priority as well. Don't look at me that way, you're in the corporate world now and this is how it works."
- TGRR, raising the bar at work.

The Good Reverend Roger

Quote from: Dr Hoopla on February 21, 2009, 06:14:23 PM
Quote from: Nigel on February 21, 2009, 04:57:24 PM
I think he's saying that what he writes from here on out is not Kopyleft.

This.

You can withdraw permission for (future) use of existing work, provided no contractual arrangements have been violated.
" It's just that Depeche Mode were a bunch of optimistic loveburgers."
- TGRR, shaming himself forever, 7/8/2017

"Billy, when I say that ethics is our number one priority and safety is also our number one priority, you should take that to mean exactly what I said. Also quality. That's our number one priority as well. Don't look at me that way, you're in the corporate world now and this is how it works."
- TGRR, raising the bar at work.

Pariah

Quote from: KC on February 21, 2009, 12:00:58 PM
I so need to write a dystopic comedy about a state where people have constitutional rights, but don't know what what rights they have, due to them being classified for national security reasons.  Somebody remind me when I'm less sleep deprived so I can decide if I really want to do it.

Sounds cool
Play safe! Ski only in a clockwise direction! Let's all have fun together!