[License-discuss] Shortest copyleft licence

[Tim Makarios]

On Fri, 2015-04-03 at 03:32 -0700, Rick Moen wrote:
> > But if you wanted to write a look-alike parody, or make an adaptation
> > that adds something completely new to the existing text (like Pride and
> > Prejudice and Zombies, for example), or even just print your own copies
> > in a larger font, it might be useful for you to have the .tex source
> > that was used to typeset the novel. 
> 
> I expected someone to raise this edge-case-obsessive point, but, as a
> matter of fair perspective, here you are talking about improved
> convenience rather than elimination of any serious obstacle.

Given the number of visually impaired people in the world, I don't know
how much of an edge case the larger-font suggestion really is.  And I
once tried using LaTeX to typeset a public-domain English translation of
The Brothers Karamazov; even with the plain text already in
computer-readable form, thanks to Project Gutenberg, it took a
surprising amount of work, and as a consequence, I never actually
finished it.  So I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the possibility that
the lack of TeX source poses no serious obstacle.

> Given
> that Seth Grahame-Smith was already probably lavishing about a year of
> his life on writing _Pride and Prejudice and Zombies: The Classic
> Regency Romance - Now with Ultraviolent Zombie Mayhem!_, I doubt that
> the sad modern-era unavailability of Jane Austen's 1797 TeX source files
> (from which Knuth got the idea[1]) was much of an obstacle to the
> writing of his novel, in context.

Right, but suppose he hadn't started with Pride and Prejudice, but had
started with some more modern novel that had been typeset in LaTeX (for
example) and initially published only in physical form (or perhaps as a
PDF), licensed under CC-BY-SA.  To save himself the trouble of getting
it into a more convenient computer-editable form, he might have written
to the author asking for the TeX source.  Could the author have refused?
Legally, yes.  Would she have?  I'm guessing probably not.

And that's sort of my point, really.  Even if a copyleft software
licence doesn't require the publication of the source code of derivative
works, I expect that in practice, the source code would almost never be
unreasonably withheld.

And I've never tried reverse engineering code, but I recall someone who
had (possibly someone involved in investigating the Diebold voting
machines a while back, but my memory may be conflating two different
seminars I attended) saying that with the tools available these days,
it's more of a tedious task than an intellectually challenging one.  A
bit like re-typesetting a physical book, I suppose.

> > This is just an example, by way of introducing the question:  How much
> > extra effort is it reasonable for a free culture or free software
> > licence to demand people go to, on top of merely demanding that they
> > don't sue people who re-use their work?
> 
> Demanding?  Reasonable?  

Replace "demand" with "require", if you prefer.  Or, if you like to go
in the other direction, try re-wording it along the lines of "threaten
to wield the coercive power of the state".

> Sorry, but all this sounds to me like out-of-scope ideological concerns
> with little or no releance to licensing.  (Your mileage may differ.)

Well, it might be relevant to people whose ideology differs from yours,
and who want a licence that does something different from what any
existing licences do.

> > Reasonable people will give different answers to this question, I'm
> > sure, but I don't think it's consistent for the sub-culture that
> > advocates copyright abolition to demand anything other than a promise
> > not to sue (but I do think it's reasonable for them to demand a
> > promise not to sue in exchange for a promise not to sue). 
> 
> I'm sorry, but _who_ exactly are you saying is advocating abolition of
> copyright?  And what colour is the sky in their vicinity?

Well, Karl Fogel [1, 2], for example, unless I've misunderstood him.
The sky appears to be a pale blue near him [3], and I understand he was
sufficiently well respected to serve for three years on the board of the
OSI.

Tim
<><

[1] http://questioncopyright.org/promise
[2] http://questioncopyright.org/shorter_better
[3] http://questioncopyright.org/team/karl