Re: [microsound] Microsound TWiki + open source content

[tautvydas <hypertext@xxxxxxx>]

http://mailman.u.washington.edu/pipermail/ichat/2002-
September/001868.html

copyright for silence

best,
t

>Dear list,
>
>
>I am quite excited to see .microsound moving in the direction 
towards 
>open and collaborative content, as I feel the romanticized myth of 
the 
>modernist genius labouring in digital solitude is in serious need of 
>puncturing.
>
>As to the specifics, I am also happy to see some good discussion 
going 
>on about it. My two bits follow...
>
>>>>- should we adopt the Creative Commons License for our content?
>
>At the soon-to-be-launched weblabel section of Umatic.nl, we had 
quite a 
>few discussions about licenses. These discussions came together with 
>ideas about the "integral identity" of a work and whether it is or 
is 
>not part of a larger [anti-]aesthetic tradition, artistic movement, 
>social milleu, technological system, etc.
>
>We talked about issues like:
>
>How much does the use of technology dictatate a work? Is the work 
really 
>*yours alone* if you use NATO or Auvi, for example, to make a video 
>patch and then you lose your software license later on, preventing 
you 
>from ever making that work again? Additionally, is the work really 
>*yours alone* if it is a product of someone else's artwork, by this 
I 
>mean the code that makes up the software that you used to produce it 
or 
>the design of the hardware which makes your work possible? Or is 
that 
>work also in part an "instance" of something, whether an aesthetic 
trend 
>or a set of possibilities provided by the tools? Finally, can a work 
of 
>art, which I consider to be more of a process between people than a 
>product in the larger scale of things, ever be frozen in time and 
>considered "finished", independent of both its previous influences 
and 
>its subsequent reception?
>
>All of these questions are implicit in choosing a license. They are 
the 
>"libre" in "free speech", and not just the permission to copy and 
>redistribute someone else's content, and the terms of the license 
you 
>choose should reflect your own ideas about the questions above.
>
>For Umatic.nl, we found that the Design Science License, which is a 
>particular version of the Gnu Public License written especially for 
>non-software, was particularly suited to our goals. We defined these 
>goals as the fluidity and transformation of audio-visual data from 
one 
>form and location to another as easily as possible, so long as the 
>original form of that data is either provided directly or linked to, 
>that the original creator of that data is attributed, and that any 
>subsequent form of that data is redistributed under the same 
conditions.
>
>Under this license, we felt that the widest range of both 
collaboration 
>and redistribution is possible. If one of us wants to release 
something 
>with a different set of goals and therefore with a more restrictive 
>license [for example, a video for festival exhibition which would 
>collect royalties], this is possible as well, but in a different 
>"section" of the label.
>
>Full text of the DSL is here:
>
>http://www.dsl.org/copyleft/dsl.txt
>
>Happy new year,
>D.
>-- 
>derek holzer ::: http://www.umatic.nl
>---Oblique Strategy # 154:
>"The most easily forgotten thing is the most important"
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: microsound-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>For additional commands, e-mail: microsound-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>website: http://www.microsound.org
>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: microsound-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
For additional commands, e-mail: microsound-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
website: http://www.microsound.org