We often hear that programms or online creation are published under a license. What does it mean ? And why is that important ?
To keep things simple, in our societiy, every exchange follows a certain contract, it can be implicit, but it exists. If one buy an apple at the market, the implicit contract is that after paying for it, the apple is his and he can do whatever he wants with it.
To keep things simple, in our societiy, every exchange follows a certain contract, it can be implicit, but it exists. If one buys an apple at the market, the implicit contract is that after paying for it, the apple is his and he can do whatever he wants with it.
For the material goods said "rivals", the selling contract often implies an ownership transfer of the good. There are often other clauses in the contract. As the warranties.
For the material goods said "rivals", the selling contract often implies an ownership transfer of the good. There are often other clauses in the contract. Like the warranties.
Where things get tricky, is when the exchanged good is said "non-rival". Which means that the good can be copied or bought multiple times without any impact on the buyers. In our case, we typically talk of a software or numérique work (would it be a movie, book, music, ...). It became evident that numeric shopping doesn't grant us any ownership of the work we bought.
Where things get tricky is when the exchanged good is said "non-rival". Which means that the good can be copied or bought multiple times without any impact on the buyers. In our case, we typically talk of a software or numeric work (would it be a movie, book, music, ...). It became evident that numeric shopping doesn't grant us any ownership of the work we bought.
It is important to signal that, for long, non rivality of works as music, book or movies was disguised by the fact that the support himself, was a rival good. If I buy a paper book, I'm the owner. But I still don't own the rights on its content! Numeric support and Internet dissipated that confusion between work and support.
It is important to signal that, for long, non rivality of works as music, book or movies was disguised by the fact that the support itself, was a rival good. If I buy a paper book, I'm the owner. But I still don't own the rights on its content! Numeric support and Internet dissipated that confusion between work and support.
To regulate all this, buying a numeric work or a computer programm is, as every buy is subject to a contract which stipulates the exact rights and obligations that the buyer will receive. License is nothing but a contract pattern, a sort of standard contract model. This contract, as for a good part of our society, relies on the supposition that, as for a rival good, a non-rival good needs to have an owner. That is obviously arbitrary and I invite you to question that premise, which is all too often admitted as a law of nature.
To regulate all this, buying a numeric work or a computer program is like every purchase: it is subject to a contract that stipulates the exact rights and obligations that the buyer will receive. License is nothing but a contract pattern, a sort of standard contract model. This contract, as for a good part of our society, relies on the supposition that, like for a rival good, a non-rival good needs to have an owner. That is obviously arbitrary and I invite you to question that premise, which is all too often admitted as a law of nature.
It is important to signal that each transaction comes with its own contract. It is possible to give rights to a buyer and not to another. It is in fact that principle that allows the "dual lincensing" practice.
It is important to signal that each transaction comes with its own contract. It is possible to give rights to a buyer and not to another. It is in fact that principle that allows the "dual lincensing" practice.
## Rights and obligations defined by the licence
In our society, every work is, by default, under a copyright licence. Meaning that the buyer can't do anything else that consulting and using the work for its personal use. Any other use, share or modificatio is by default prohibited.
In our society, every work is, by default, under a copyright licence. Meaning that the buyer can't do anything else other than consulting and using the work for its personal use. Any other use, share or modification is by default prohibited.
On the opposite, exists the public domain. Works in the public domain aren't associated with any particular right: anybody can use, modify and redistribut it as he want.
On the other hand, it exists the "public domain". Public domain works aren't associated with any particular right: anybody can use, modify and redistribute it as they want.
One of the major intellectual scam of the copyrights absolutists is to have made us believe that there was no other alternative between those two extremes. As we are either owner of the apple, or we aren't, the fiction wants that we are either owner of a work (of the copyright), or owner of nothing, just good enough to watch. It is obviously fake.
One of the majors intellectual scams of the copyrights absolutists is to have made us believe that there was no other alternative other than those two extremes. As if we were either owner of the apple, or we not. The fiction wants us to be either the owner of a work (of the copyright), or owner of nothing, just good enough to watch. It is obviously fake.
If the license is a wall of obligations to which the buyer must submit, it is possible to only take some of its bricks.
As example, on can grant all ownership rights except the one of claiming the paternity of the work. The BSD, MIT or Creative Commons By licenses, for example, require to cite the orignal author. But we can still modify and redistribute.
As an example, one can grant all ownership rights except claiming the paternity of the work. The BSD, MIT or Creative Commons By licenses, for example, require to cite the orignal author, but we can still modify and redistribute.
The CC By-ND licence, requires to cite the author, but does not allow modification. Redistribution, on the other hand, is allowed.
An important thing to point out is that when redistributing an existing work, we can modify its license, but only if we add constraints (bricks). So I have the right to take an existing work under CC By license, modify it and then redistribute it under CC By-ND. However, it isn't allowed for me to take bricks et do the opposite. In every redistribution, the new license must be either equivalent, or more restrictive.
An important thing to point out is that when redistributing an existing work, we can modify its license, but only if we add constraints (bricks). So I have the right to take an existing work under CC By license, modify it and then redistribute it under CC By-ND. However, it isn't allowed for me to take bricks and do the other way around. In every redistribution, the new license must be either equivalent, or more restrictive.
The problem of this approach, it that everything will end up restricted because we can only restrain user rights! It is by te way what happends in big companies as Google, Facebook or Apple that use thousands of open source programms and transform them in proprietary software. A real open source patrimony looting!
The problem of this approach, it that everything will end up restricted because we can only restrain user rights! That's what happened in big companies like Google, Facebook or Apple who use thousands of open source programms and transform them into proprietary software. A real open source patrimony looting!
## Copyleft, or prohibition on adding bricks
That's where Richard Stallman idea is a genius one : by inventing the GPL lincense, Richard Stallman as a matter of fact invented the "no more bricks" brick. You can modify and redistribute a software under GPL license. But modification must also be under GPL.
That's where Richard Stallman idea stands out: by inventing the GPL lincense, Richard Stallman created the "no more bricks" brick. You can modify and redistribute a software under GPL license, but modification must also be under GPL.
It's also the idea of the Share-Alike clause in Creative Commons. A published work under CC By-SA (As are my books published at PVH) can be modified, redistributed and even sold. The only condition is to still be under CC By-SA license or equivalent.
The irony is that we designate by "copyleft" the licenses that prevent from adding bricks and si
Ironically, "copyleft" refers to licenses that prevent the addition of bricks and thus the privatization of resources. They where presented as "contaminating" or even as "cancers" by Microsoft, Apple, Google or Facebook. Those companies now present themselves as big defenders of open source. But they fight with all their might against the copyleft and against the addoption of those licenses in the open source world. The idea is to pretend to open source developers that if their software can be privatized, then they, great princes, will be able to use it and, eventually, maybe, hire the programmer and pay him a few peanuts.
Ironically, "copyleft" refers to licenses that prevent the addition of bricks, and thus the privatization of resources. They were presented as "contaminating" or even as "cancers" by Microsoft, Apple, Google or Facebook. Those companies now present themselves as big defenders of open source. But they fight with all their might against the copyleft and against the addoption of those licenses in the open source world. The idea is to pretend to open source developers that if their software can be privatized, then the companies, the great princes, will use it and eventually...maybe...hire the programmer and pay them a few peanuts.
The truth is as obvious as can be: while they can add privating bricks to licenses, those monopols can keep exploiting common good represented by open source software. They can beneficiate from an impressive amount of free or cheap workforce.
The truth is as obvious as can be: as long as they can add privating bricks to licenses, those monopolies can keep exploiting common good represented by open source software. They can benefit from an impressive amount of free or cheap workforce.
The fact that those morbid monopolies can keep exploiting and are even praised by the exploited developers shows the fundamental importance to understand what really is a license and the implications of the choice of such a license instead of an other.
The fact that those morbid monopolies can keep exploiting and are even praised by the exploited developers, shows the fundamental importance to understand what really is a license and the implications of the choice of one license instead of an other.
