Hi Rob, Aymeric--

>> On Oct 30, 2011 Rob wrote:
> If I download the high-resolution version of (e.g.) a scan of a Joy
> Garnett painting and remix that, there is no reason why I should not
> publish only a low-resolution version. And if I wish to make a dumb JPEG
> remix of an image, I shouldn't be forced to have to make a multi-layer
> GIMP file in order to do so.
If the software you used in your remix adds no sources that were not freely available anyway, then I agree with you (and so do rich media source licenses). Or am I not understanding?

If instead you're saying that you feel no compunction to give downsteam users of open-sourced media the same options you enjoyed from the original creator...well, let's just say that many of the artists I've worked with feel differently.

> "The ideal cultural source will be:
> 
> *    Transparent - In a format that is easily editable by human beings.
> For electronic versions, preferably a text-based format.
> *    Full quality - Of a standard that allows you to at least recreate
> the distributed format (so at least one generation above the released
> version).
> *    Complete - Consisting of at least the materials required to
> recreate the distributed version, with any cues or lead ins included.
> *    Unencumbered - In a free and open format unencumbered by patents,
> DRM or any future impediment to use.
> *    Structured - Preferably in a vector, multi-track or other rich format."
This is a nice list, and quite similar to the expectations of the Open Art License. You might also be interested in Golan Levin's argument (which I can't find a citation for at the moment) arguing that it's more important to tell artists how you did something than to give them the source code.

> And giving tribal patriarchy the tools of state law to restrict the
> speech of its dissidents is a nightmare to be avoided rather than any
> kind of resistance to Empire.
Wow, it sounds like Native folks really make you nervous! You ought to hang out with them sometime. None of the 20-odd "tribes" represented at our Connected Knowledge events were patriarchies. And to my knowledge none of our representatives were interested in restricting speech, but rather in refocusing it on fostering stronger social connections. One of our most important collaborators is in fact a dissident, prevented by the state from crossing national borders because of his "resistance to Empire."

> http://three.org/openart/license/
> 
> That's a remixed creative commons legal deed rather than a legally sound
> licence.
Ha!

> It is nonfree (it has non-commercial restrictions)
By Richard Stallman's definition, so are half of the Creative Commons licenses. But non-commercial licenses explicitly support non-commercial culture, and I'm all for more of that.

>, it is
> burdensome (downstream users are required to register
> adaptations/derivatives)
You're right, ease of use is a valid concern. That said, for me, the "burden" is worthwhile because it fosters stronger social connections--something that Creative Commons licenses currently do *not* accomplish. (More on this "repository burden" below.)

> and contains redundancies (the last two clauses
> both cover adaptations/derivatives).
For some, the distinction between combinations and transformations is critical. There are people who slave over getting the backbeat just right, or nailing down every browser incompatibility. They are often happy for others to take advantage of their efforts through *combination*--say, by including the audio file as the soundtrack to another video, or by including the JavaScript in another Web site. But these perfectionists don't always want their work changed by *transformation*--say, by a bigot who overlays racial slurs over an audio track, or a script kiddie who breaks a script's compatibility. (There are studies that suggest the more accomplished the creation, the more likely its creator will favor combination over transformation.)

I am not one of those people, and I often choose to allow both combinations and transformations. The distinction is explicit in the Open Art License to let the perfectionists know what they're getting into, and frankly, I think every license that permits derivative uses should make clarify its approach to both combinations and transformations. (A similar distinction is implicit--and historically important--in the difference between GPL and LGPL.)

> Just use BY-SA. It will prevent exclusive commercial exploitation of
> work,
What if I want to prevent all commercial exploitation by default?

> and won't prevent work being reported to or recorded by a repository.
I'd rather encourage rather than "not prevent."

As practical as Creative Commons licenses can be, they unfortunately emphasize consumption instead of creation, because they lack provisions for offering source files rather than simply executables. Just as importantly, they emphasize a social dynamic of detachment rather than connection; simply put, there is no easy way for someone who makes their MP3 available under a Creative Commons license to find out who ends up listening to it or remixing it. This "free-for-all" ethic may have been useful for the early Internet, but it does not serve the long-term sustainability of artistic and electronic networks, which rely on meaningful social ties rather than hit-and-run mashups.

>> On Oct 30, 2011 Aymeric wrote:
> I am stuck in a creative walled garden, precisely
> because ... such a license lets the author define what sources can be. As a
> result I have been granted the right to "play" within an artistic
> sandbox defined by the author, instead of having my creative freedom
> ensured by the license.
I'm sorry, I don't understand. Is there an open-source license that prevents you from mixing in other sources? Which license would ensure creative freedom in the sense you are describing?

> Maybe I should add that, in my own practice, I do try to provide as much
> relevant "sources" as possible...Ardour sessions, Nintendo DS code, shell scripts...
Great!

> But this is still not satisfying, it's just a possible workaround to
> the problem and I believe that any rational attempt to define artistic
> sources is simply not working.
I understand your theoretical concerns. In practice, I have found that there are sensible solutions, and that these are far preferable to throwing up our hands and doing nothing. Grahame Weinbren's Erl King was inspired by a man's dream. There's not much point in trying to pass the dream downstream. But that doesn't mean there's no point in passing down the PASCAL code or the digital video masters.

Besides encouraging freedom of expression, there's another reason to promote the sharing of source files: preservation. In our forthcoming book New Media and Social Memory, Richard Rinehart recounts a visit from Pixar representatives to the Berkeley Art Museum/Pacific Film Archives to ask how to preserve Toy Story. After lecturing Pixar about cold storage and safety film, Rick's colleague was taken aback when the Pixar reps clarified that they didn't want to save the *film*, but to save the *movie*. In other words, the physical film stock was less useful to them than the Menv source files--from which the movie could be recovered and ported to new cinematic media.

As I watch my own works dependent on Shockwave, Flash, and other source files I never bothered to expose go dark one by one, I am paying a painful cost for my own publication of the executable without the source. So for me the association of art and open source is no accident.

Cheers,

jon