15 Matching Annotations
  1. Apr 2023
    1. 13. Remote Network Interaction; Use with the GNU General Public License. Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, if you modify the Program, your modified version must prominently offer all users interacting with it remotely through a computer network (if your version supports such interaction) an opportunity to receive the Corresponding Source of your version by providing access to the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge, through some standard or customary means of facilitating copying of software. This Corresponding Source shall include the Corresponding Source for any work covered by version 3 of the GNU General Public License that is incorporated pursuant to the following paragraph.

      The main difference between AGPL-3.0 and GPL-3.0

  2. Mar 2023
    1. For open educators, this runs counter to the very reason we use OER in the first place. Many open educators choose OER because there are legal permissions that allow for the ethical reuse of other people’s material — material the creators have generously and freely made available through the application of open licenses to it. The thought of using work that has not been freely gifted to the commons by the creator feels wrong for many open educators and is antithetical to the generosity inherent in the OER community.
  3. Jul 2021
    1. it is also clear that there would be no need for copyleft licences to govern the exercise of copyright in software code by third-party developers at all if copyright did not guarantee rightsholders such a high degree of exclusive control over intellectual creations in the first place

      This is simply not true. The unique character of software under the conventions that most software is published (effectively obfuscated, albeit not for the purpose obfuscation itself, but for the purposes of producing an executable binary) means that reciprocal licenses like the GPL are very much reliant on the existing copyright regime. Ubiquitous and pervasive non-destructive compilation would be a prerequisite for a world where copyright's role on free software were nil.

  4. Feb 2021
  5. May 2020
  6. Aug 2019
    1. “Naturally, you are free to take any liberties you wish with my published work. However, should I ever be granted the privilege of constraining your liberty then I constrain you thus: the liberties you take may not be withheld from those to whom you give my work (or your combined/derivative work), who you must similarly constrain.”
  7. Dec 2018
    1. Why, when we are so worried about preserving freedoms, do we prohibit choice on the part of downstream users as to how they can license derivatives works they make? Why don’t we want to protect that user’s freedom to choose how to license his derivative work, into which he put substantial effort? The copyleft approach of both the Free Software Foundation and Creative Commons makes creators of derivative works second-class citizens. And these are the people we claim to be primarily interested in empowering. I can’t stress this point enough: the ShareAlike clause of the CC licenses and the CopyLeft tack of the GFDL rob derivers of the basic freedom to choose which license they will apply to their derived work. ShareAlike and CopyLeft privilege creators while directing derivers to the back of the bus.

      I think that license compatibility is one of the least user friendly areas in the Creative Commons process. Opening resources while being attributed sounds appealing to educators who are dipping their toes in these concepts. Then we pull out Compatibility Charts and people want to run for the hills! I think that the democracy and openness that Creative Commons embodies should be inclusive and I think it's hard for people to decipher these equations which are so crucial to responsible use.

  8. Feb 2018
    1. Tal vez, en última instancia, este esfuerzo fue mi intento imperfecto para hacer una declaración político-ontológica, aprovechando los espacios ultra diseñados de aquello que llamamos la academia, el libro y el proceso de pensamiento.

      Interesante ver cómo usa espacios hiperdiseñados para deconstruir el diseño.

  9. Jan 2018
    1. La sociedad convivencial descansará sobre contratos sociales que garanticen a cada uno el mayor y más libre acceso a las herramientas de la comunidad, con la condición de no lesionar una igual libertad de acceso al otro [...] Una pluralidad de herramientas limitadas y de organizaciones convivenciales estimulará una diversidad de modos de vida, que tendría más en cuenta la memoria, es decir la herencia del pasado o la invención, es decir la creación

      Habría que ver cómo esas licencias que alientan y preservan las libertades de otro contribuyen a crear dichas organizaciones conviviales y esa diversidad. Por ejemplo, las licencias mismas son diversas y crean comunidades de prácticas diversas alrededor de las mismas, incluso si no son totalmente copyleft o copyfarleft (como ya ocurre con varias licencias MIT y BSD).

      La tensión sobre si se requieren licencias copyfarleft para evitar la enagenación por quienes se aprovechan de la librecultura pero la encierran, sólo podrá ser resuelta en la medida en que se puedan alentar y conectar economías del procomún y asociarlas a los sistemas de licenciamiento.

  10. Nov 2017
    1. Sotheproblemthatcopyleftsolvedwashowtoprovidefreesoftwarebutmaintainitsfreedom.TheideaofcopyleftbecamethefoundationofageneralpubliclicenceknownasGPLandspurredglobalfreesoftwareandopen-sourcesoftwaremovements.

      [...] It is not an exaggeration to say that the Internet, and especially the infrastructure of digital commons, is mostly run by open-source software such as WordPress, Wikimedia, Joomla, and Drupal, which are the results of the contributions of many programmers. Open-source software repositories such as GitLab, Savannah, Ourproject.org, and SourceForge, to give just a few examples, are a testimony to the resilience of the digital commons. It is no wonder, then, that it would be the subject of intense political economy analyses of its gift economy and also its ethics and aesthetics.

      Este es un caso práctico de un caso de descentralización (en la producción del código) que usa la centralización (de la Ley y su cobertura) para la protección contra el enagenamiento de los bienes comunes, al asumir una posición extrema en su defensa, preservació y expansión. Ver https://hyp.is/ZiqFIMfIEeefX0smBD82BA



  11. Dec 2015
    1. if the group should decide to fork Moodle together

      Contrary to Free Software, Open Source has special affordances for forking, even if the forks become commercial.

  12. Feb 2014
    1. the understanding of proprietary as synonymous with closed-sourced or nontransparent. Proprietary means having an owner who prohibits access to information, who keeps the source code secret; it does not necessarily mean having an owner who extracts a profit, although keeping the source code secret and extracting a profit often coincide in practice.

      maybe does get regulatory aspect

    2. Copyleft uses copyright law, but flips it over to serve the opposite of its usual purpose. Instead of fostering privatization, it becomes a guarantee that everyone has the freedom to use, copy, distribute and modify software or any other work. Its only “restriction” is precisely the one that guarantees freedom – users are not permitted to restrict anyone else’s freedom since all copies and derivations must be redistributed under the same license. Copyleft claims ownership legally only to relinquish it practically by allowing everyone to use the work as they choose as long the copyleft is passed down. The merely formal claim of ownership means that no one else may put a copyright over a copylefted work and try to limit its use.

      misses regulatory aspect of source-requiring copyleft

    1. e the core of commons-based peer production entails provisioning withou t direct appropriation and since indirect appropriation—intrinsic or extrinsic—does not rely on control of the information but on its widest possible availability, intellectual property offers no gain, only loss, to peer production. While it is true that free software currently uses copyright-based licensing to prevent certain kinds of defection from peer production processes, that strategy is needed only as a form of institutional jiujitsu to defend from intellectual property. 136 A complete absence of property in the software domain would be at least as congenial to free software development as the condition where property exists, but copyright permits free soft ware projects to use licensing to defend themselves from defection. The same protection from defection might be provided by other means as well, such as creating simple public mechanisms for contributing one’s work in a way that makes it unsusceptible to downstream appropriation—a conservancy of sorts. Regulators concerned with fostering innovation may better direct their efforts toward providing the institutional tools that would help thousands of people to collaborate without appropriating their joint product, making the information they produce freely availabl e rather than spending their efforts to increase the scope and sophistication of the mechanisms for private appropriation of this public good as they now do.

      Conservancy of sorts would not protect appropriation int he form of secrecy. But "widest possible availability" hints at a different kind of regulation, mandated revelation -- which is exactly what source requiring copyleft (ie *GPL) aims to do.