> Look back a few messages, because I was very careful with my wording here.
I said that it is unethical to deny people the four freedoms, for all works.
Note that I do not do so. All of the licenses I use are libre software and
libre culture licenses.
Now that have a lot more sense to me than just Because it's not your place to
tell me what I can do with my property. The second one kind of reject any
copyright law and even conditions like "give appropriate credit whenever is
changed or shared".
> What do you mean by "relicense"? Do you mean "impose a new legal monopoly
on other people"? Because that's what that actually means.
Yes, relicense is shorter though.
> If you really have the power to impose legal monopolies with the rest of
your property, please show me how you do it. Show me, for example, how you
use your couch to forbid others from selling other couches that are the same
as yours
Step one:
Design a couch. Finish? Now you have the authorship for the design of that
particular couch.
Step two:
Now, you can license the design and put any restrictions that you may want
to. For instance: "You may not use this couch with commercial purposes, this
includes but it is not limited to: Selling the couch, using the couch for
parties in which the entrance has a price, rent the couch". I'm not sure if
you can copyright the couch once it's build. But I guess that if you can have
authorship and copyright protection from a statue, then you should have
copyright protection with your couch, assuming it's original enough.
Step tree:
When you sell the couch, you tell the customer the license conditions or else
he wont be able to get the couch.
Anyway, I thing we are a little bit out of scope now.
Going back to my original concern:
I think that anyone should have all four essential freedoms When it comes to
things that serves for practical use, in other words, tools.
For non-functional things (art for instance). I thing it's fair to impose
more restrictions as long as you give the freedom to make non-commercial
copies of the work. So then people can share without entering in a moral
dilemma and being self-destructed because of the infinite loop (just joking).
Additionally I think that copyright protection should expire in say 15-10
years starting from the day of the publication. that means that music, games
and other could enter the public domain sooner. And with that being able to
qualify as free culture. That will also mean that free software will enter in
the public domain sooner though. Which means no copyleft for that software
once it enter the public domain. I'm not happy with that, so I propose that
all software that enter in the public domain should be freed. With this maybe
proprietary software can use source code from free software, but in 15-10
years they are going to liberate his software too.
(I basically copied the ideas from Stallman, but who cares since ideas can't
be copyrighted?)
But you take a step further and say that all works, functional and
non-functional should respect four freedoms or else you're being unethical.
I agree with that in functional works. But completely fail on why
non-functional works should respect all four freedoms.
