According to those who would apply the GNU GPL to software and ND to opinion, I wonder which license I should (ideally) use to write software that expresses opinion.
On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 9:01 AM, Aaron Wolf <wolft...@riseup.net> wrote: > > > On 05/27/2015 07:48 AM, Yoni Rabkin wrote: >> choosing to make personal >> opinions immutable > > That's not what ND does. ND stops other people from doing creative > things that draw upon your work. Your personal opinions are yours alone > regardless of any of this. Nobody else can change them. > > >> I have yet to see a practical discussion about a specific >> one of those pieces, a different license, and what the community would >> gain (outside of the general principles and the general argument, which >> has been revisited many times over thus far.) >> > > Then you haven't been reading. One of the most valuable and important > derivative works already made of Richard's stuff is a video that cuts > out longer pauses so his speech is a better and shorter thing to view. > That's a violation of ND. > > Another thing mentioned was change of medium, such as someone using > Richard's text unchanged in a video about software freedom. > > Emphasis has been made about translations. > > LICENSE INCOMPATIBILITY! > > Anyway, ND is an anti-Wikipedia and ant-commons license. It's frankly > *impossible* for Richard to both keep ND terms and *grant* someone > permission to use his writing in a very respectful, completely accurate > way when mixed with CC-BY-SA material. For example, I might take your > blog writings, Richard's writings, and some wonderful CC-BY-SA artwork > and music and create a video promoting software freedom. Well, that's > illegal. Why? Maybe Richard thinks my use of his *unaltered* words is > perfectly fine… but I *have* to license my video as CC-BY-SA because > that is the SA part of respecting everyone else's contributions to the > commons. > > I cannot make a video that says "This is CC-BY-SA, except for that text, > that stuff is ND, which means if you make a derivative of this video, > you can't include that text without Richard's permission" because that > would violate the terms from the musician whose music is being played in > the background. > > This incompatibility means that even derivatives that authors *like* > can't happen. > > There's a ton of compelling arguments about why ND is wrong, and I've > posted links to other articles and resources about this. > > Nobody defending ND has actually addressed any of these points or made > any substantive arguments actually showing why ND helps anything. I'd be > happy to discuss or address those points if they exist. >
