(A)GPL as a license for fiction?

[Kali Yuga]

You will still need to copyright your work (or, to put it another way, rely on copyright) if you ever plan to enforce this license.

As it states in the overview to the GPL: "Developers that use the GNU GPL protect your rights with two steps: (1) assert copyright on the software, and (2) offer you this License giving you legal permission to copy, distribute and/or modify it."

Of course, that's one of the benefits of contemporary copyright, is that the content creator has a great deal of latitude in which rights to grant or reserve to the recipient.

That said, using the actual GPL to stipulate usage of a text isn't going to make a lot of sense, since much of the language in the license refers to software-specific elements (source code, warranties etc). I'm also not aware of any aspect in there which specifies a limited duration.

I think you'd be better off starting with one of the five Creative Commons and modify it if required. Legally, the GPL is no stronger or weaker than CC, in fact it might omit something critical since the language is not specifically targeted to creative content.

[Iphinome]

Originally Posted by GeoffC

Hoi !


darn it , that's my secret out of the bag .... mmmm - this banding about, about my chocolate , is that not a copyright violation !!!

well I probably violate copyright every time I remember the taste but don't pay for the extra copy in my memory. Tell you what I'll make a trade, in exchange for an unlimited chocolate license I'll let you read my dead tree 1891 edition of Anderson's Fairy Tales

[GeoffC]

The one issue not raised is whether the copyright has an international inforcement ?

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

You will still need to copyright your work (or, to put it another way, rely on copyright) if you ever plan to enforce this license.

As it states in the overview to the GPL: "Developers that use the GNU GPL protect your rights with two steps: (1) assert copyright on the software, and (2) offer you this License giving you legal permission to copy, distribute and/or modify it."

Of course, that's one of the benefits of contemporary copyright, is that the content creator has a great deal of latitude in which rights to grant or reserve to the recipient.

That said, using the actual GPL to stipulate usage of a text isn't going to make a lot of sense, since much of the language in the license refers to software-specific elements (source code, warranties etc). I'm also not aware of any aspect in there which specifies a limited duration.

I think you'd be better off starting with one of the five Creative Commons and modify it if required. Legally, the GPL is no stronger or weaker than CC, in fact it might omit something critical since the language is not specifically targeted to creative content.

I suppose Public Domain is the best way to go when I think this through and want to achieve the most freedom. The Public Domain may be the only way to achieve my goals, or what I'm now calling the Vonnegut principal.

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by GeoffC

The one issue not raised is whether the copyright has an international inforcement ?

I don't want to enforce anything, truly, I just thought one of the GPL licenses would be the best to use beyond the lacklustre Creative Commons licensing. but I think I'm swerving toward Public Domain now as being the best option.

[omk3]

Well, if you don't plan to enforce it, why not just write a simple note, something like: "Here, it's yours. Do what you will with it, but I would please like it if you kept my name somewhere, if you plan to change it. And it's always nice to keep free what you received free." or something. Better worded, of course, but then you're the writer.

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by omk3

Well, if you don't plan to enforce it, why not just write a simple note, something like: "Here, it's yours. Do what you will with it, but I would please like it if you kept my name somewhere, if you plan to change it. And it's always nice to keep free what you received free." or something. Better worded, of course, but then you're the writer.

I think, I'm almost sure, I'm ninety percent convinced that I'll release into the public domain and upload the text to archive.org at the same time. From thereon in it will be interesting to watch what happens, if anything at all with no marketing and no push from my end

[Iphinome]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

That said, using the actual GPL to stipulate usage of a text isn't going to make a lot of sense, since much of the language in the license refers to software-specific elements (source code, warranties etc). I'm also not aware of any aspect in there which specifies a limited duration.

The GPL doesn't work but the GNU FDL (free documentation license) does.

It does rely on copyright but if there were not copyright the only thing that could be lost is credit as everything else covered in the license is something you can do by default with anything not copyrighted. Modify distribute sell or create a derivative with no way to stop anyone else from doing the same with your changes/additions if you chose to publish.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by GeoffC

In the digital age, does any copyright really work, unless one has the financial muscle to back it up ?

Possibly not today. But things change, and tomorrow may be an entirely different story. IOW, don't assume that there will never be a workable way to protect copyright... that would be like betting we'd never walk on the Moon.

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Possibly not today. But things change, and tomorrow may be an entirely different story. IOW, don't assume that there will never be a workable way to protect copyright... that would be like betting we'd never walk on the Moon.

The only way you can protect copyright in a digital age is to uninvent the digital and retard all progress made to this point. If anything, copyright is becoming less and less important to the wider culture. Not only do I assume that there won't be a way to protect copyright, I'll actively work towards solutions that break said protections at every level.

[omk3]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

I think, I'm almost sure, I'm ninety percent convinced that I'll release into the public domain and upload the text to archive.org at the same time. From thereon in it will be interesting to watch what happens, if anything at all with no marketing and no push from my end

What do you expect to happen?
Your work copied and raped and sold as the new Dan Brown?

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Possibly not today. But things change, and tomorrow may be an entirely different story. IOW, don't assume that there will never be a workable way to protect copyright... that would be like betting we'd never walk on the Moon.

I'd really hope our scientific developments will have more worthy goals

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by omk3

What do you expect to happen?
Your work copied and raped and sold as the new Dan Brown?

Dan Brown is an invention of the publishers. He can't possibly exist. He's like the Tooth Fairy of bad fiction, but instead of leaving you money, he takes it and leaves you with the tooth and the ache that goes along with it

[Iphinome]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Possibly not today. But things change, and tomorrow may be an entirely different story. IOW, don't assume that there will never be a workable way to protect copyright... that would be like betting we'd never walk on the Moon.

I think it would require people having a reason why they should respect copyright. In the past copyright was a social quid pro quo, right now its being used as cudgel. Digital lockdowns, demands, shrink wrap licences, long terms, no more fair use if there's drm, drm in and of itself, massive statutory damages. The system is broken, unworthy of protection it the current form.

[GeoffC]

Why not just say ....

"Get off, it's mine !"

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

The only way you can protect copyright in a digital age is to uninvent the digital and retard all progress made to this point. If anything, copyright is becoming less and less important to the wider culture. Not only do I assume that there won't be a way to protect copyright, I'll actively work towards solutions that break said protections at every level.

That's actually a narrow vision of "progress." There are a number of ways that technology could give us answers to digital document security, if the right people decide it needs to be done.

I'm curious: Exactly why to you believe digital document security is so evil that it must be prevented at all costs?

And as an aside: If you do not want to profit from your own work, how will you feel about those who take your work, assume full credit for it, and profit from it? This, of course, is what copyright is all about, and why those who would like to achieve some profit off of their own work tend to support it. Why should creators not have the opportunity to profit from their work, if others can profit as well?

Originally Posted by Iphinome

I think it would require people having a reason why they should respect copyright. In the past copyright was a social quid pro quo, right now its being used as cudgel. Digital lockdowns, demands, shrink wrap licences, long terms, no more fair use if there's drm, drm in and of itself, massive statutory damages. The system is broken, unworthy of protection it the current form.

Actually, it was pretty much the threat of fines/loss of services, and imprisonment, that have always prevented people from violating copyright... the more likely the chance of suffering those fines/loss of services and/or imprisonment, the less likely to break copyright.

And not all of it is stick... some of it is carrot. Take the cable industry, which offers hordes of television content to its users... provided you do not run a cable across the yard and illegally share your signal with your neighbor. Cable sharing is incredibly easy, so why don't more people do it? Simply because they don't want to lose their access to those hordes of TV shows. So, clearly, there are ways of convincing people to follow copyright restrictions.