Recent searches
Search options
Apparently, @fsf (and gnu.org) is down, so the URL too [Edit: up again now]
A copy in the @internetarchive (until we'll have this treasure):
https://web.archive.org/web/20220322000725/https://www.fsf.org/bulletin/2010/fall/lending-a-solved-problem
The point on how companies (but not only) may try to twist a core advantage of electronic copies - which natively can "be infinitely read and shared" - makes me wonder how authors who use freedom-respecting licenses may legally oppose to this
I agree on
https://stallman.org/articles/online-education.html
but with a note on #DigitalPreservation (1/3)
2/3
The note is on licenses for science works except software, or works stating a viewpoint
@creativecommons@mastodon.social is often used. Unlimited reading/sharing is key: "one of the primary advances" digital works represent for civilization
How this works? E.g. #CCBY v4.0 asks (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode ) any copy to retain "a URI or hyperlink to the Licensed Material to the extent reasonably practicable". Enough to disable any copy restriction?
Not enough, if the URI is not digitally preserved (#linkrot)
3/3
One may imagine a company (or a public body whose freedom is under attack) making efforts for that URI to become as fragile/inaccessible as possible, so that controlling the digital copy would suffice to impede the originally free work to be accessed without "permission"
A potential solution might be to amend the CC-BY license, so that the concept of #DigitalPreservation is included
As authors (weak proxy): #GreenOpenAccess archives for long-term preservation
Higher level: legislation