[pp.int.general] free software video streaming

[Patrick Godschalk]

> I ask them to release under CC-BY-ND, which permits posting
> on YouTube.

Isn't this kind of contrary to the concept of 'free software' or, in
this case, 'free media'? I mean, I get the concept of CC-licenses and
I applaud their existence since they're a great alternative to the 'all
rights reserved' copyright monopoly; however it's by my definition
explicitly *not* free.

In the case of CC-BY-ND it *restricts* your freedom to copy, distribute
and share the work. Sure, you can do so at will and even profit from
it, but what if I don't want to attribute the original author, or can't
due to design choices I have no further influence on? And what about
the 'No Derivative Works'? Why can't I use (parts of), in this case,
your speech in a different political debate if they are good arguments?

Personally I have a bit of a problem with calling such licenses 'free'.
I wouldn't call them explicitly free, but 'more free' than the
copyright monopoly. However, since a license inherently restricts your
rights to do whatever the hell you want that automatically means that
license also restricts your freedom to do those things. (Hence why I
personally try to release whatever I make - music, video, code or
otherwise - under a public domain dedication.

It's somewhat arguing semantics but I find it an important distinction
to be aware of when we try to promote 'freedom'. I'm somewhat scared,
for lack of a better word, that by adding exceptions to the freedom
to copy and share, we're already on a sliding scale to adding more and
more restrictions - and a restriction contradicts freedom.

Patrick Godschalk
patrick.godschalk at piratenpartij.nl
GPG: C891 65CE EB86 ABFC AA7F 9435 14C6 64ED 1FFF C84B