I also suggest that public broadcasters strongly consider copylefting their content. Say a Creative Commons BY-SA licence or something better if anyone knows of one.
I fully support copyleft for functional material such as software, but for non-functional content such as fiction, exposition, essays, etc, wouldn't that be dangerous? For example, wouldn't using a copyleft license like the GNU GPL or the Creative Commons BY-SA mean that the author grants you permission to copy their work to some other place, then modify it so that it says exactly the opposite of the original intent?
Even RMS marks his essays (as opposed to software) with a license that allows only verbatim copying, which is not copyleft. For most non-functional creative works, where the author wants to distribute the work but not necessarily allow any arbitrary change to be made, that type of license would be more appropriate.
Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux help
Re:Some thoughts for them.
Posted by: lordcorusa on March 15, 2006 02:00 AMI fully support copyleft for functional material such as software, but for non-functional content such as fiction, exposition, essays, etc, wouldn't that be dangerous? For example, wouldn't using a copyleft license like the GNU GPL or the Creative Commons BY-SA mean that the author grants you permission to copy their work to some other place, then modify it so that it says exactly the opposite of the original intent?
Even RMS marks his essays (as opposed to software) with a license that allows only verbatim copying, which is not copyleft. For most non-functional creative works, where the author wants to distribute the work but not necessarily allow any arbitrary change to be made, that type of license would be more appropriate.
#