drummyfish/less_retarded_wiki
5
1
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull requests Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity

Update

Browse source
This commit is contained in:
Miloslav Ciz 2023-10-26 21:18:34 +02:00
parent 5c43f56dc3
commit 1c2717e515
8 changed files with 48 additions and 29 deletions
Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

10
copyleft.md
View file

@ -1,16 +1,16 @@
# Copyleft
Copyleft (also share-alike) is a concept of sharing something on the condition that others will share it under the same terms; this is practically always used by a subset of [free (as in freedom) software](free_software.md) and [culture](free_culture.md) to legally ensure this software/art and its modifications will always remain free. This kind of [hacks](hacking.md) [copyright](copyright.md) to de-facto remove copyright by its own power.
Copyleft (also share-alike) is a concept of allowing sharing and modifications of intellectual works (such as pictures, music or computer programs) on the legal condition that others will share it under the same terms (i.e. that they will also allow the work's further free sharing and modification etc.); it was created by the critics of [copyright](copyright.md) as a "more sane" take on sharing. Copyleft is widely utilized by some proponents of [free (as in freedom) software](free_software.md) and [culture](free_culture.md) to legally ensure this software/art and its modifications will always remain free, however other camps of freedom proponents argue that copyleft is still to restrictive and share their works under [even more relaxed](premissive.md) legal conditions. Copyleft kind of [hacks](hacking.md) [copyright](copyright.md) to de-facto remove copyright (the monopoly it creates) by its own power.
Copyleft has been by its mechanisms likened to a virus because once it is applied to certain software, it "infects" it and will force its conditions on any [descendants](fork.md) of that software, i.e. it will spread itself (in this case the word virus does not bear a negative connotation, at least to some, they see it as a good virus).
Copyleft has been by its mechanisms likened to a virus because once it is applied to certain software, it "infects" it and will force its conditions on any [descendants](fork.md) of that software, i.e. it will spread itself (in this case the word virus does not bear a negative connotation, at least to some, they see it as a "good virus").
For free/open-source software the alternative to copyleft is so called **permissive** licensing which (same as with copyleft) grants all the necessary freedom rights, but does NOT require modified versions to grant these rights as well. This allows free software being forked and developed into [proprietary](proprietary.md) software and is what copyleft proponents criticize. However, both copyleft and permissive licensing are free as in freedom.
For free/open-source software the alternative to copyleft is so called **[permissive](permissive.md)** licensing which (same as with copyleft) grants all the necessary freedom rights, but, unlike copyleft, does NOT require further modified versions to grant these rights as well. This allows free software being forked and developed into [proprietary](proprietary.md) software and is what copyleft proponents criticize. However, both copyleft and permissive licensing are free as in freedom.
In the [FOSS](foss.md) world there is a huge battle between the copyleft camp and permissive camp ([LRS](lrs.md) advocates permissive licenses with a preference for 100% [public domain](public_domain.md)).
In the [FOSS](foss.md) world there is a huge battle between the copyleft camp and permissive camp (our [LRS](lrs.md) advocates permissive licenses with a preference for 100% [public domain](public_domain.md)). These debates go beyond mere technology and law for the basic disagreement lies in whether freedom should be forced and if forced freedom really is freedom, thereby getting into questions of politics, ideologies, philosophy, morality and [ethics](ethics.md).
## Issues With Copyleft
In the great debate of copyleft vs permissive free licenses we, as technological anarchists, stand on the permissive side. Here are some reasons for why we reject copyleft:
In the great debate of copyleft vs permissive free licenses we, as technological [anarchists](anarchism.md) who oppose any "intellectual property" laws and their enforcement, stand on the permissive side. Here are some reasons for why we reject copyleft:
- It **burdens the reuser of the work by requiring him to do something extra** -- while a public domain and many permissive licensed works can simply be taken and used without taking any extra action, just as it should ideally be, a work under copyleft requires its user to take an action, for example copying the license file (and then forever making sure it doesn't get lost), giving credit etc. While one may think this is not such a big deal, it's a form of friction that can get in the way of creativity, especially when combining many works under possibly different copyleft licenses which suddenly becomes quite cumbersome to handle.
- By adopting copyleft one is **embracing and supporting the copyright laws and perpetuating the [capitalist](capitalism.md) ways** ("marrying the lawyers") because copyleft relies on and uses copyright laws to function; to enforce copyleft (prevent "disallowed" use) one has to make a legal action (while with permissive license we simply basically give up the rights to make a legal action). Copyleft chooses to play along with the capitalist bullshit [intellectual property](intellectual_property.md) game and threatens to [fight](fight_culture.md) and use force and bullying in order to enforce *correct* usage of information.