I should add that the GPL does not have such a thing as a 'free riding shield'. The GPL is about granting and preserving liberty. There is no obligation to reciprocate labour or money. And there's certainly no prohibition against commercial exploitation whether of derivatives or perfect copies. The GPL contrives liberty - hence free software as in freedom, not as in beer (nor barter). A gift economy is an epiphenomenon of liberty - it is not forced through legal compulsion (for then it would no longer be a gift). The GPL does not compel the commercial exploiter to 'gift' their modifications back to the community. It is the height of sophistry to say that because the GPL compels the preservation of liberty, that compulsion is therefore ethically justifiable per se, e.g. in compelling non-commercial exploitation. This is the same semantic abuse that occurs when people suggest that the BSD is a freer license than the GPL because it grants the licensee greater freedom of choice. The fundamental schism between the GPL/FC and CC is that the former is wholly focussed on emancipating the public, whereas the latter remains focussed on benefitting the publisher (at the expense of the public's liberty). Note also that the GPL embraces the right for an artist to sell their labour (without needing permission), whereas CC-NC is happy to suspend this right for the publisher's benefit, that they may then sell it back to those members of the public who'd like to build upon public works. Lessig still hasn't let go of the notion that copyright's suspension of the public's liberty is there for the publisher's benefit, to be restored in any respect only if it is in the publisher's interest and preference. Lessig's message isn't liberation for the people, but a lesson on how they can make their own robes from the same sheer fabric as he once made for their emperor.
_______________________________________________ fc-uk-discuss mailing list fc-uk-discuss@lists.okfn.org http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/fc-uk-discuss
