Re: <nettime> My Lawyer is an Artist

[David Griffiths <dave@pawfal.org>]

Heiko Recktenwald wrote:

> Hi
> 
> Am 11.11.2011 14:23, schrieb Aymeric Mansoux:
> 
>> It is in fact a crucial stage. By doing so, the author allows her or
>> his work to interface with a system inside which it can be freely
>> exchanged, modified and distributed. The freedom of this work is not
>> to be misunderstood with gratis and free of charge access to the
>> creation, it means that once such a freedom is granted to a work of
>> art, anyone is free to redistribute and modify it according to the
>> rules provided by its license. There is no turning back once this
>> choice is made public.
> 
> This is IMHO pure nonsense. IMHO nothing can stop a pruducer from
> changing his mind for the future. Why should it be the way you
> imagine? What should be the reason for such a limitation ("no turning
> back") of his freedom? Can you show me, sorry, ONE case where a court
> has decided in your way?

With a licence such as the GPL my understanding was that the "no-turning
back point" happens whenever someone else contributes or forks the work
- from this point on agreement has to be reached from all authors before
the licence can be changed - in practice this is not generally possible.

In terms of software, the freedom considered important by the GPL is
that of the users of the work, not the developers (i.e. it should remain
free/open for the users benefit).

cheers,

dave


#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
#  <nettime>  is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@kein.org