> Expressing disapproval of the use of AI through open licenses.
Those licenses aren’t very open. Like the Creative Commons non commercial licenses.
Those licenses aren’t very open. Like the Creative Commons non commercial licenses.
First off, telling someone how they can use something is what a license is. Even the GPL is defined in those terms, and moreover, the GPL tells you how you can use the code it protects! ("If you use this code, you must release the source" is functionally as much of a constraint as "if you use this work, it can't be for profit", the difference is ideological, not categorical)
The only function of bringing that up is making weird black-and-white absolutist arguments where "any license which does not grant every possible use is not open" arguments. That just doesn't match with reality - all variants of CC are much more open than standard copyright.
Also, an extremely important point that is often overlooked in these arguments: your statement is actually false, since it does not tell someone how they can use a work, only how they can use it under that license. In other words, if you want to profit off of someone else's work, you're still free to contact the author and receive license to do so.
As I pointed out, the fundamental premise of the GPL is not "there can be no restrictions in license to use a work", it's "the only acceptable restriction is restricting others from restricting their own work". Which, itself, is a laudable goal, but it's an argument that fs folks instinctively shy away from - because they know it invites the immediate counter, "if you admit there are acceptable exceptions, why is that the only one?"
And that's the rub, because the next question is, "So why is it wrong for someone to want to see the fruit of their own labor when someone else is profiting off of it"? Especially when they themselves are offering their own work to the commons, free of charge. If someone is contributing to the freedom of information, they should be able to rest easy knowing it is not being gated by someone else. Of freedom of Use, Redistribution, Study, or Modification, it can only be said to weakly violate "Use", and even then, only when you refuse to compensate the original author. (Art is also unlike software; you can't "use" a painting to manage your payroll in a copyright-prohibited way)
(Also interesting that you bring up the "four freedoms," because one of FDR's four freedoms - those that inspired Stallman's list - is "freedom from want". And living under capitalism, under copyright, one of the chief ways want is addressed is by profiting off selling your own intellectual labor. If you know that you'll get any profits that are generated directly from your work, it makes it much easier to surrender it to the common good.)
You don't make the honest argument, because you know that changing the argument from "no exceptions in the terms of Use" to "only this exception" becomes an argument of "so where do we draw the line", which is much more complicated than a simple black and white.
I believe your counter-argument is "okay, but NC licenses don't really violate Freedom 0, because you are free to run it as long as you pay the author"? Or like, "Freedom 0 is dumb anyway", which then breaks the premises and we can't really discuss much after that.
Therefore, I will only reply to the former. My counter would be "maybe, but in that case you need compulsory licensing, as it currently is, the original author can refuse to let you exercise your Freedom 0 no matter how much money you offer, and therefore it is violated".
Well, one of my points is that's a different argument entirely from the one in either the parent or the GP, which is part of what bothers me. This is the first fully articulated, coherent argument in this thread.
That said, my actual counterargument (which I think should be clear from all of my previous responses) is "well, if that's your argument, then CC-NC is clearly good!".
As I've said from the beginning CC-NC is a much more lenient licence than almost any other. It sets a work to be completely free by three measures, and mostly free by the fourth. By any reasonable definition, it brings a work "closer to the four essential freedoms", your stated goal. It only stops a little short of the goal.
The only world in which this is not true is the you assume that any CC-* license would otherwise be GPL-like. But that's a totally specious assumption - for one thing the default in legal society is full copyright. And most artists wouldn't feel comfortable fully releasing their work for Disney to profit off of while they try and survive off of cup ramen. A world in which CC-NC does not exist is a world that, on the net, I'd assert would be much less free.
This isn't a black-and-white world where you can claim in good faith that "any not-fully free work is just as bad as being fully copyrighted" - and you can't condemn CC-NC unless you're willing to claim that those works are better off not free at all, which is a betrayal of the principles you claim to hold.
> Why does CC support “non-free” licenses at all? Isn’t that against its mission?
> CC hopes to promote a more open culture than “all rights reserved”. Some creators want to allow very broad use of their works. Some wish to allow some uses but restrict others. We believe that all levels of openness are worth encouraging and supporting as an alternative to “all rights reserved.” While we hope that some creators will use the non-free licenses as a stepping stone to greater openness in the future, CC encourages sharing under any of its licenses as a way to create a more open culture.
Source: https://creativecommons.org/public-domain/freeworks/
The only thing that I ask is that certain terms (e.g. Free Cultural Works, Open Source, Libre Software) retain their meaning so there's a clear goal to work towards. One thing that annoys me, for example, is companies releasing software or weights under a non-libre license but trying to pass it off as libre anyway. That's about it x3
(Libre = Free as in freedom in this case, to ease confusion)
Though to be fair GP does say "aside from not sharing it". I interpreted this as "aside from not giving it a CC license". I realise it could be interpreted as "aside from not publishing it" instead. So there might be confusion there.