mttaggart, 2 months ago

Everyone in the replies telling me this subsection or provision implies protection or is problematic is missing the point.

I want a license that says, in no uncertain terms: Keep your god damned dirty robot hands off my work.

ShredderFeeder, 2 months ago

@mttaggart doesn't the fact that attribution is required cover it?

mttaggart, 2 months ago

@ShredderFeeder Plainly it does not, if not even traditional copyright does. I think an explicit statement in the license matters a great deal.

geraldew, 2 months ago

@mttaggart @ShredderFeeder which means that what you are after is a form or body of legislation which has that power, because as you have already recognised, copyright law does not.
I chip in with a statement of the obvious because I'm always bemused by people thinking that it is the licence statement that provides the powers (that we use for FOSS or CC) when in fact it comes by turning copyright upon itself.
Alas, getting better laws is much harder.

mttaggart, 2 months ago

@geraldew @ShredderFeeder Yes, t am aware the license by itself is not sufficient. But the statement qua statement is important, imo.

nemobis, 2 months ago

@mttaggart So would you remove §8(a) from all #CreativeCommons licenses?
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/legalcode.en#s8a

Have you considered something like a #ContractPatch? https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2020/dec/17/ethical-contract-patch/

@geraldew @ShredderFeeder

mttaggart, 2 months ago

@nemobis @geraldew @ShredderFeeder No, that's why I'm proposing a new license that does modify that provision.

nemobis, 2 months ago

@mttaggart But CC just went through an extensive process to unify their licenses with version 4.

It might be easier to propose a separate legal instrument which is not a license, a bit like CC0 and the PDM.