Version 1.1 of the definition has been released. Please help updating it, contribute translations, and help us with the design of logos and buttons to identify free cultural works and licenses!

Difference between revisions of "User talk:Mercury merlin/A modest proposal"

From Definition of Free Cultural Works
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(initial commentary)
 
 
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
== Commentary on ' a modest proposal' ==
+
== Commentary on 'a modest proposal' ==
  
For this piece I was thinking about the way all content is automatically restricted by default under present law, requiring the contortions of copyleft to allow authors the option to make content and derivatives of content they have produced free and unrestricted in the sense used by [http://freedomdefined.org Freedom defined].
+
For this piece I was thinking about the way all content is automatically restricted by default under present laws, requiring the contortions of copyleft to allow authors the option to make content and derivatives of content they have produced free and unrestricted in the sense used by [http://freedomdefined.org Freedom defined].
  
 
[[User:Mercury_merlin/A modest proposal|A modest proposal]] is an attempt to envisage a regime where all content was unrestricted by default, where any restrictions could only exist for a strictly limited time and where original authors retained the final say on disposition of the content after that time (through a non-transferable right of attribution), and also where original authors had the option available to declare content they produced forever common under permanent share-alike.
 
[[User:Mercury_merlin/A modest proposal|A modest proposal]] is an attempt to envisage a regime where all content was unrestricted by default, where any restrictions could only exist for a strictly limited time and where original authors retained the final say on disposition of the content after that time (through a non-transferable right of attribution), and also where original authors had the option available to declare content they produced forever common under permanent share-alike.
  
There is a little more unsaid, and further commentary I should make to explain why some of the provisions are written in the way they are. Perhaps I can also create a specific page for it within my user-space on the site for now, as well, to keep it by itself?
+
More detailed commentary (section by section) to follow below:
  
The overall intent of the proposal should be clear enough, however.
+
== Common domain ==
 +
 
 +
[[User:Mercury_merlin/A modest proposal#Common domain|Common domain]] is essentially the existing concept of  [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain Public domain], except that I propose going with the idea of inalienable [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights moral rights], such as attribution, as in continental Europe, and then extending that to also allow an author to assert perpetual Share-Alike in a Creative Commons sense if desired.
 +
 
 +
The attribution requirement, especially if made strict, as by the [[User:Mercury_merlin/A modest proposal#Plagiarism|Plagiarism]] section, could become onerous for some content as multiple derivations are created, and that might need to be addressed.
 +
 
 +
The Share-alike option goes further than conventional moral rights for authors, and is intended to allow an author the option to make content permanently Free in a Free Content/Free Software sense under these proposals. Present-day copyleft already allows this, in effect, thanks to copyright law which is effectively permanent, but since subsequent sections propose to greatly limit the duration of monopoly on copying this is necessary if the possibility of permanently Free content (whether Linux, Wikipedia, or anything else) is to be maintained.
 +
 
 +
Also, making the option of share-alike an inalienable author's right allows it to be used in subsequent sections as a limitation on the ownership of content by publishers, as will be described under that section.

Latest revision as of 21:00, 5 November 2006

Commentary on 'a modest proposal'[edit]

For this piece I was thinking about the way all content is automatically restricted by default under present laws, requiring the contortions of copyleft to allow authors the option to make content and derivatives of content they have produced free and unrestricted in the sense used by Freedom defined.

A modest proposal is an attempt to envisage a regime where all content was unrestricted by default, where any restrictions could only exist for a strictly limited time and where original authors retained the final say on disposition of the content after that time (through a non-transferable right of attribution), and also where original authors had the option available to declare content they produced forever common under permanent share-alike.

More detailed commentary (section by section) to follow below:

Common domain[edit]

Common domain is essentially the existing concept of Public domain, except that I propose going with the idea of inalienable moral rights, such as attribution, as in continental Europe, and then extending that to also allow an author to assert perpetual Share-Alike in a Creative Commons sense if desired.

The attribution requirement, especially if made strict, as by the Plagiarism section, could become onerous for some content as multiple derivations are created, and that might need to be addressed.

The Share-alike option goes further than conventional moral rights for authors, and is intended to allow an author the option to make content permanently Free in a Free Content/Free Software sense under these proposals. Present-day copyleft already allows this, in effect, thanks to copyright law which is effectively permanent, but since subsequent sections propose to greatly limit the duration of monopoly on copying this is necessary if the possibility of permanently Free content (whether Linux, Wikipedia, or anything else) is to be maintained.

Also, making the option of share-alike an inalienable author's right allows it to be used in subsequent sections as a limitation on the ownership of content by publishers, as will be described under that section.