[Freedom-misc] Need help choosing a free licence for my website
mason at masonhock.com
mason at masonhock.com
Mon Jan 21 09:06:41 CET 2019
> With software I agree the source code should be libre software, because
when you make a program you can do harm to others (stealing bank
accounts,selling user data without his consent etc.) and we can't trust
That is a good argument for freedom 1, as we can use freedom 1 to determine
whether software is malicious and change it if it is. However, even if a
developer does not implement any malicious functionality into their software,
it would be unjust for them to place restrictions on how we use it, so we
also need freedom 0. Sharing and cooperation are also important to society,
so there should not be restrictions on our ability to share and cooperate,
which is why we also need freedoms 2 and 3.
> I made a video of me talking about how I became a programmer while walking
in the desert for example... and uploaded the video to my website and I made
it under CC Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International. So I give you the
right to share copy and sell it but not to modify it and redistribute it, ok?
( Correct me if Im wrong about this :D )
Correct. Other than requiring attribution (which does not infringe any of the
freedoms) there are no restrictions on use or verbatim distribution, but
modifications are not allowed, so we have freedoms 0 and 2 but not freedoms 1
> Why in the hell do you want me to give you the right to alter what I was
saying in the video? You may cut the scenes of the video and make me saying
weird stuff :D... Sorry but I can't understand why you want me to give you
the right to modify the video.
You can't give anyone the right to modify the video. The state can impose
restrictions on my right to modify it. Otherwise I could do whatever I want
with the information I've received. The question to ask is not why I want the
right to modify, but rather how do these restrictions benefit the public? If
very few authors would produce cultural works without such restrictions in
place, then there is some benefit to the public. However, the benefit must be
weighed against the social costs of the restrictions, and we should accept
the minimum amount of restrictions necessary to have a healthy body of
cultural works. This is called the "copyright bargain." If you haven't read
RMS's essay on the topic I highly recommend it.
As for the example you bring up ("You may cut the scenes of the video and
make me saying weird stuff"), it is true that someone could cut together
scenes from the video in a misleading way. Fortunately, the Attribution
clause of the license would require anyone who does this to say that they
have altered the video. That way they can't fool people into thinking that
those were your words. The only requirement this imposes is that they be
honest about the video's origin. The No Derivatives clause goes much further
than this, forbidding modifications of any kind. Is this warranted? Again,
the question is not whether there is a good enough reason to allow
modification, but whether forbidding modification will benefit the public.
> Plz don't say I must give you that right because you deserve freedom, it
does not make any sense because you are not respecting mine first...
Not respecting your freedom to do what? Copyright law might affect what you
can do with other information, but it has nothing to do with your freedoms
regarding your own video. The question is whether forbidding modification
will benefit the public.
More information about the Freedom-misc