On 14/11/11 23:26, Aymeric Mansoux wrote: > > I'd like to read/write more about that. I think it's an important > discussion to have. My initial intention while writing about licenses as > art manifestos was precisely to try to articulate how licenses can > provide imaginary landscapes to build art upon.
I think it's a very productive approach! The GPL has been called a "constitution", which would make it more the basis of a state than of a landscape. What the GPL had that the authors of the CC licences lacked (apart from Negativland's now retired Sampling licence) was a lived social example for how the work that it covered should be used. Stallman had the practice of the hackers at the MIT AI Lab in mind as a model for the GPL to recreate. So not a landscape but a society. CC-BY-SA didn't have anything equivalent to that, and its few rough edges where it follows the law rather than principle reflect this. I do think that trying to use licences to try and create a social, political or economic effect other than protecting freedom of speech/expression through the work covered by the licence tends to be self-defeating. But that's different from what you are talking about which is the ways in which licences have different social (and aesthetic?) effects even when they appear to be similar in their legal effects. > In that sense while the > FAL/LAL and the CC-BY-SA have been flirting around technical > compatibility for years already, their "imaginary landscape", or more > simply the historical context in which they are born, are quite > different. What I find interesting about the LAL is just how different that landscape is from CC-BY-SA. The language of the LAL strongly presupposes collaboration and addition to communal artworks. BY-SA is more concerned with clearly explaining that the work and its adaptations must remain free. > I am not sure that the resulting art separation is deliberate > though, I feel it's more like a by-product. Yes the LAL pre-dates CC-BY-SA and was a product of an art conference so I think you're right about the historical context and intent. - Rob. _______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
