Ah, se alguém puder traduzir essa tirinha da Nina Paley para o português http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ME_442_Permission.png
seria legal para colocarmos no verbete cultura da permissão da Wikipédia http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultura_da_permiss%C3%A3o Posso fazer, mas vai demorar um pouquinho. 2012/11/26 Everton Zanella Alvarenga <everton.alvare...@okfn.org> > > Um texto interessante do Stallman > > http://stallman.org/articles/online-education.html > > Prominent universities are using a nonfree license for their digital > educational works. That is bad already, but even worse, the license they are > using has a serious inherent problem. > > When a work is made for doing a practical job, the users must have control > over the job, so they need to have control over the work. This applies to > software, and to educational works too. For the users to have this control, > they need certain freedoms (see gnu.org), and we say the work is "free" (or > "libre", to emphasize we are not talking about price). For works that might > be used in commercial contexts, the requisite freedom includes commercial > use, redistribution and modification. > > Creative Commons publishes six principal licenses. Two are free/libre > licenses: the Sharealike license CC-BY-SA is a free/libre license with > copyleft, and the Attribution license (CC-BY) is a free/libre license without > copyleft. The other four are nonfree, either because they don't allow > modification (ND, Noderivs) or because they don't allow commercial use (NC, > Nocommercial). > > In my view, nonfree licenses are ok for works of art/entertainment, or that > present personal viewpoints (such as this article itself). Those works aren't > meant for doing a practical job, so the argument about the users' control > does not apply. Thus, I do not object if they are published with the > CC-BY-NC-ND license, which allows only noncommercial redistribution of exact > copies. > > Use of this license for a work does not mean that you can't possibly publish > that work commercially or with modifications. The license doesn't give > permission for that, but you could ask the copyright holder for permission, > perhaps offering a quid pro quo, and you might get it. It isn't automatic, > but it isn't impossible. > > However, two of the nonfree CC licenses lead to the creation of works that > can't in practice be published commercially, because there is no feasible way > to ask for permission. These are CC-BY-NC and CC-BY-NC-SA, the two CC > licenses that permit modification but not commercial use. > > The problem arises because, with the Internet, people can easily (and > lawfully) pile one noncommercial modification on another. Over decades this > will result in works with contributions from hundreds or even thousands of > people. > > What happens if you would like to use one of those works commercially? How > could you get permission? You'd have to ask all the substantial copyright > holders. Some of them might have contributed years before and be impossible > to find. Some might have contributed decades before, and might well be dead, > but their copyrights won't have died with them. You'd have to find and ask > their heirs, supposing it is possible to identify those. In general, it will > be impossible to clear copyright on the works that these licenses invite > people to make. > > This is a form of the well-known "orphan works" problem, except exponentially > worse; when combining works that had many contributors, the resulting work > can be orphaned many times over before it is born. > > To eliminate this problem would require a mechanism that involves asking > _someone_ for permission (otherwise the NC condition turns into a nullity), > but doesn't require asking _all the contributors_ for permission. It is easy > to imagine such mechanisms; the hard part is to convince the community that > one such mechanisms is fair and reach a consensus to accept it. > > I hope that can be done, but the CC-BY-NC and CC-BY-NC-SA licenses, as they > are today, should be avoided. > > Unfortunately, one of them is used quite a lot. CC-BY-NC-SA, which allows > noncommercial publication of modified versions under the same license, has > become the fashion for online educational works. MIT's "Open Courseware" got > it stared, and many other schools followed MIT down the wrong path. Whereas > in software "open source" means "probably free, but I don't dare talk about > it so you'll have to check for yourself," in many online education projects > "open" means "nonfree for sure". > > Even if the problem with CC-BY-NC-SA and CC-BY-NC is fixed, they still won't > be the right way to release educational works meant for doing practical jobs. > The users of these works, teachers and students, must have control over the > works, and that requires making them free. I urge Creative Commons to state > that works meant for practical jobs, including educational resources and > reference works as well as software, should be released under free/libre > licenses only. > > Educators, and all those who wish to contribute to on-line educational works: > please do not to let your work be made non-free. Offer your assistance and > text to educational works that carry free/libre licenses, preferably copyleft > licenses so that all versions of the work must respect teachers' and > students' freedom. Then invite educational activities to use and redistribute > these works on that freedom-respecting basis, if they will. Together we can > make education a domain of freedom. > > > -- > Everton Zanella Alvarenga (also Tom) > Open Knowledge Foundation Brasil -- Everton Zanella Alvarenga (also Tom) Open Knowledge Foundation Brasil _______________________________________________ WikimediaBR-l mailing list WikimediaBR-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediabr-l
