[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  
binary code.

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  
and 3.

 > 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[1] 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.

[1] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/misinterpreting-copyright.html


More information about the Freedom-misc mailing list