Print

Print


On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 3:21 AM, aymeric mansoux <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Hi Rob,

>  To be honest, I don't know if it's reasonable if you consider that the
>  licensing of an artwork has become a conscious creative and political
>  choice.
>
>  Choosing a license is, for some artists, not just a legal and technical
>  framework, it's a way to embed a political statement and context for their
>  work. And in that regards every license is different.

SA and GPL are both statements of explicit opportunity for others.
GPL GDFL includes 4 freedoms which do create a different creative and
political space.

My distinction between GPL and SA is that it feels as though SA was
still written with an owner's hat on
because it is not explicit about how and when a person is required to
distribute the work.
GPL is explicit about the idea that the person must distribute openly
and about what that means
in terms of online, CD, cost etc. Someone has placed themselves in
that process and been explicit about how.
With GPL the copyright can be collectively held which simplifies the
attribution of complex works.

BY is more like the public domain sharing of a meme with the moral
rights still embedded.
Fine for individual works, hard for wikis and complex collaborations
where BY is diffuse.