Re: translations under Creative Commons license?
"Michael D. Crawford" <crawford@goingware.com> writes:
> So, are you suggesting that freedom would be better served if the GNU
> manifesto provided for modification? Note the manifesto's license:
>
>> Permission is granted to anyone to make or distribute verbatim
>> copies of this document, in any medium, provided that the copyright
>> notice and permission notice are preserved, and that the
>> distributor grants the recipient permission for further
>> redistribution as permitted by this notice. Modified versions may
>> not be made.
>
> Suppose the Manifesto were a free document. That would allow
> Microsoft's PR flacks to "update" the Manifesto to exhort the user to
> protect corporate rights to intellectual property, and illustrate how
> respecting End User License Agreements stimulates not only the
> nation's, but the world's economy.
You are incorrect. The Free Software Foundation has a monopoly on the
trade mark "GNU". As a result, no other organization may title a
document "GNU Manifesto" without the FSF's permission.
So yes, suppose the Manifesto were a free, copylefted document. That
would allow Microsoft to use parts of the Manifesto to support their
own ideas. It would also allow the FSF to use parts of Microsoft's
Manifestos.
> Would that serve the cause of freedom?
A free and open commons of ideas serves the cause of truth, through
which we maintain freedom. A benevolent dictatorship of ideas, such
as the FSF is attempting to create with the GFDL, is not Freedom --
merely a new set of masters.
> I'm aiming to do the same thing with music, and I don't want the
> record industry to put words in my mouth. Neither do I want to allow
> that of people who might be well meaning but incompetent.
Fortunately, copyright licenses have nothing to do with who may put
words in your mouth. That's covered by the laws against slander,
libel, defamation, fraud, and the laws protecting trade and service
marks.
You could put your essays under the MIT/X11 license, and it would
still not be lawful for me to claim you said other than what you did.
The only protection you gain by keeping tight copyright control over
your works, allowing only unmodified distribution, is confidence that
nobody can use your arguments or rhetorical techniques to strengthen
their own arguments.
-Brian
Reply to: