[FC-discuss] Free Software and Free Culture

[Crosbie Fitch]

There are two kinds of FC.

1) FC in the ambient conditions of copyright and patent (often contrived by
license)
2) FC post abolition

Post abolition, there is no need to compel the publication of source
material, you simply purchase it. It will tend to be freely available,
precisely because those who've purchased it diffuse it - if nothing else for
the benefits of highly distributed, collaborative development.

The GPL's requirement that publication of binaries are accompanied by source
both persuades people to get used to the source being visible, as well as
provides a defense against a licensee being litigious (obliging the
licensee's discosure of source prevents them abusing the GPL for FUD
purposes - similar to MS's claims it has patents, without needing to reveal
them).

So, disclosure of source is really to counter the effects of copyright and
the proprietary/closed source business model, there's not actually a right
to compel any author to release their source materials, nor is one needed,
now or ever. The best form of persuasion is money.

All that FC or FS needs is the restoration of liberty (suspended by
copyright and patents). Once you have your liberty, then access to the
artist's private source materials is something to be achieved through
monetary persuasion rather than stormtroopers raiding the artist's premises
to sequester them for the public good. Many artists and coders will publish
their source materials free of charge anyway - to promote their skills
(until they are paid for their source materials).

The GPL's obligation to publish source code could actually be removed from
GPLv3 without making an iota of difference. The requirement is there
primarily to deprogram people from their ingrained inclination to waste time
thinking there's mileage to be gained in publishing binaries whilst keeping
source code secret.

Because it's a bit of a red herring, it's a bit of a mistake for FC to copy
this obligation to release source in formulating or recommending copyleft
licenses. And it would be a tragedy to include this in any principles.

FC now only needs to refer to FS to demonstrate to artists that if their art
becomes free of encumbrance, that they may as well sell the master tracks as
the MP3. In any case, the market will put a price on these things, and if a
musician has a higher price than the market will bear, what's wrong with
that?

Post-abolition it cannot be unethical to publish an MP3 without the 16 track
master. If you want the master, buy it. Remember, you'll have your liberty.
You can copy this master a million times or publish it on your website.
Which tends to mean that you have no right to compel a musician to release
their master (or score, etc.). You offer them a price they can't refuse - or
you club together - or perhaps it's already been sold and is now on the
file-sharing networks?

You have your liberty back. Don't go beyond equity and demand art without
payment.