Comments on: the voting has begun — and if you’re in the wikipedia world, please participate Blog, news, books Tue, 10 Oct 2017 06:01:00 +0000 hourly 1 By: Steven Devijver Wed, 15 Apr 2009 11:32:20 +0000 Thanks for the heads up, voted for.

By: Crosbie Fitch Wed, 15 Apr 2009 10:36:24 +0000 James, bear in mind that it is copyright that applies the coercive constraints over the public, by suspending their cultural liberty.

If the clear objective of Wikipedia is to emancipate the public from copyright’s cultural constraints, then improving the license’s emancipation is ethical – even if it involves ignoring precursor licenses.

Ignoring privilege in the process of restoring the public’s natural rights may well upset those privileged by copyright, but it is a corruption of the term ‘ethical’ to suggest that ignoring an unethical privilege is itself unethical.

You may as well suggest that liberating a cotton farmer’s slaves was unethical.

If you’d like to argue which of GFDL or CC-SA best emancipates the public, that’s a different matter.

By: James Wed, 15 Apr 2009 04:20:02 +0000 Coercing those who did not choose to use a particular license to retroactively have their works licensed with that license is something that should have no place in anything claiming to be a free culture. You should be ashamed of your role in this. It’s the sort of skullduggery I expect from corrupt politicians, not advocates of free sharing of works.

There’s a proper way to do this: start licensing new content under both licenses and change the licensing of a page when no trace of the original GFDL-only version remains, except by possible derivative works arguments. That’s slower than just saying “done” with an unethical license change but it’s the right way to go about it.

By: Jardinero1 Tue, 14 Apr 2009 15:32:11 +0000 Does the professor see a conflict of interest in promoting a CC license? Is a full disclosure in order?

By: AkabeForuM Tue, 14 Apr 2009 15:02:15 +0000 The point is not that a culturally free license should coerce people’s good nature, but that by restoring their liberty, it reflects and enables it.

By: Crosbie Fitch Tue, 14 Apr 2009 14:59:13 +0000 Instead of obliging attribution (an unnatural obligation), prohibit misattribution (a natural constraint).

Credit is good, but compulsory credit leaves no room for credit given out of respect.

The point is not that a culturally free license should coerce people’s good nature, but that by restoring their liberty, it reflects and enables it.

I do not want to see people prosecuted for copyright infringement because they have failed to attribute the author(s) whose work they have shared or built upon, despite no attempt to present the work as original, nor attempt to distort or conceal its provenance.

There is no natural right for a copyright holder to dictate the use, communication, or reproduction of their published work. So, if a license hopes to foster a free culture by emancipating the public from copyright’s constraints, then it should completely neutralise copyright’s privileging of the holder to demand worship from their less privileged fellows. It’s a seductive trap to think that the obligation of attribution is a mere trifle that is the least the public should do – if they tolerate no other suspension of their liberty.