Adapted from a lecture and slide show at the Open Knowledge Conference in Berlin will present the first July 2011. - NP
Cross Posted from ninapaley.com

To use free software is a matter of the users 'freedom to copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. More specifically, the program 's users have the four basic freedoms:

• The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
• The freedom to study how the program works and modify it to do it (freedom 1) what you want. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
• The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
• The freedom to redistribute copies of your modified versions to third parties (freedom 3). This way you can the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

- The Free Software Definition

These are the four freedoms of free software. They are basic principles, and they are just the thing. They have served and continue to serve the Free Software Movement, very good. They provide the user 's freedom above all other concerns. Free software is a basic movement, but a free culture is not - at least not so far. Why?

1st The No Derivatives (-ND) Restriction

If you tinker with software, you can improve it. They can also break or make it worse, but the freedom, Tinker is one of the four basic freedoms of free software. Your software can be used for purposes you don 't as if by "bad people", or be used against you, the four freedoms wisely advised us to get over it too.
Unfortunately, the Free Software Foundation does not extend "Freedom to Tinker" to culture:



Cultural works published by the Free Software Foundation come with "No Derivatives" restrictions. You rationalize it here:

Works that express a person 's opinion-memoirs, editorials, and so fundamentally different purposes-serve more as works for practical use, such as software and documentation. For this reason we expect that they give the recipients with a different set of permissions (Note how the user is now known as "Recipient" and their freedoms are now using the name "permissions" - NP) : Only the permission to copy and distribute verbatim. (Link)

The problem is that it is absolutely wrong. You do not know what purposes your works might serve others.You do not know how plants could be found "virtually" by others. To qualify for the limitations of the "usefulness" of cultural works to understand, an irrational inclination betrays the software and to all other creative work. It is anti-art, appreciation software over the rest of the culture. He says programmers are entitled to freedom alone, but everyone else can suck it. Use of restrictions is a non-ND unjustifiable violation of freedom of others.

For example, here I have violated the Free Software Foundation's No-Derivatives license:

The Four Freedoms of Free Culture:

1. The freedom to run, view, hear, read, play, perform, or otherwise attend to the Work;
2nd The freedom to study, analyze and dissect copies of the work, and customize it to your needs;
3rd The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help others;
4. The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others. By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes.
(Link)

Without permission, I 've created a derivative work: the four freedoms of Free Culture. Although I hurt FSF 's No-Derivatives license, it violates freedoms 2 and 4, so that we' re too.

1st The Non-Commercial (NC) Restriction

The freedom to redistribute free software is essential for success. It has too many benefits to for-profit company, the larger community.

Red Hat, Canonical - the world would be better if these companies were banned? Free software you want to benefit from a ban on this company?

But the cultural ecosystem by the prevalence of non-commercial restrictions stunted. This works to keep trading monopolies, and - above all for professional artists like myself - are functional as restrictive as copyright unmodified. But they are far mislabeled "free culture" or even "copyleft".

This is still one of the most awarded and popular documentary RiP: A Remix Manifesto. This film is many peoples 'introduction to the concept of "Free Culture" and "copyleft". But as you can see, the non-commercial restriction is cast in the actual license-free conditions in a pot.

See that dollar sign with the slash in it? That means non-commercial restrictions, the most certainly are NOT copyleft. (I \ branding confusion've written before about Creative Commons ", but it 's only become worse since then.) This film is not free, even under non-commercial restrictions permitted. As an artist and filmmaker, I have noticed confusion on my creative colleagues on the agenda. Some filmmakers believe that the term "Free Culture" is cool, but they still want to prevent other 'freedom and impose trade monopolies on their works. The book Free Culture by Lawrence Lessig himself culure not free, but it is much looked up to. It is an unfortunate and confusing example with its non-commercial license. It shows the lack of guidelines in the Free Culture movement.

I have worked with many artists who made it to \ speak 's "no real difference" between non-commercial licenses and free alternatives. But these differences are well known and unacceptable in free software and for good reason.
Usage Restrictions Non-Commercial "Free Culture" neuters what could be an effective move, if it's just principles.

So what I want?

I want a principled Free Culture Movement.

I want to take people to the Free Software culture seriously. I want to run a Free Culture movement of the principles of freedom, like the Free Software movement is guided by the principles of freedom. I will want a name that I use what can be called - the phrase "Free Culture" is becoming meaningless, as is often applied to non-free practices and is also the name of a famous book, which is fraught with non-commercial restrictions.

I want a Free Culture ecosystem that artists can make money. I want anybody to be able to accept money for their work and remixes of public entertainment - like a trucker to be able to accept money for driving on a road. I want money to participate in the many incentives in the built environment. Without freedom, Tinker, and distribute without restriction, there is little incentive to expand and improve cultural works. There is little reward to help your neighbor when you are guaranteed to lose money doing so. "Free Culture" is non-commercial restrictions with a hobby for those with a surplus of time and work, and those who stay only money monopolists.

I would like commerce without monopolies. I want to understand the difference.

I want a Free Culture ecosystem that has the amount of companies like Red Hat and Canonical covers. I would like to cultural enterprises to give back to their communities that work with their clients instead of against it. Only if we refuse to be non-commercial and non-derivative restrictions our work place a robust ecosystem Free Culture appear to be able to.

I want the Free Software community – those who currently best understand the Four Freedoms – to champion the rest of Culture, not just Software. I want freedom for all.

Permalink | Comments | E-mail this story