On 29/10/11 21:45, Jon Ippolito wrote:
> I'm glad you noted that much of the information shared by hackers
> isn't intended to be shared with the entire globe, but rather within
> a community according to its norms. This seemingly contradictory
> stance suggests a more nuanced, and more tribal, ethic than the
> "Information Wants to Be Free" motto parodied by Stewart Brand.
""Information wants to be free" (IWTBF hereafter) is half of Stewart
Brand's famous aphorism, first uttered at the Hackers Conference in
Marin County, California (where else?), in 1984: "On the one hand
information wants to be expensive, because it's so valuable. The right
information in the right place just changes your life. On the other
hand, information wants to be free, because the cost of getting it out
is getting lower and lower all the time. So you have these two fighting
against each other.""
There are many groups of hackers, and those groups are created by social
norms, not legal enforcement (indeed disregard for the law and
regulations is a common bond between hackers). Sharing public keys does
create a web of trust, but information can be extracted from one web and
placed into another.
Forking is a better guarantor of freedom of association than restrictive
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.
That's a remixed creative commons legal deed rather than a legally sound
licence. It is nonfree (it has non-commercial restrictions), it is
burdensome (downstream users are required to register
adaptations/derivatives) and contains redundancies (the last two clauses
both cover adaptations/derivatives).
Noncommercial licences are not copyleft:
Just use BY-SA. It will prevent exclusive commercial exploitation of
work, and won't prevent work being reported to or recorded by a repository.