Ah, se alguém puder traduzir essa tirinha da Nina Paley para o português


seria legal para colocarmos no verbete cultura da permissão da Wikipédia


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

Responder a