CALL
IT AS YOU LIKE, IT'S FREEDOM, AND THAT'S WHAT COUNTS
A Note on Wu Ming, Copyleft and the GNU Free Document License
by Wu Ming 1
Several
people ask us why we use the term "copyleft" to describe our approach
to free reproduction of texts, and the principle giving shape to the notice
featured in our books.
Some remind us that copyleft has given origin to real commercial licenses,
such as GPL and GFDL [GNU Free Document License], and ask us why we are not
using them.
They are very detailed licenses (maybe because they are a product of Anglo-Saxon
culture, which is very captious as far as intellectual property is concerned)
and may be deemed as two of the possible applications of copyleft. They must
not be equated to copyleft itself, which is a more general notion. Copyleft
is the principle, GFDL is one application of it. This application does not
yet realize the whole potential of the principle.
Let's stick to Richard Stallman's basic definition:
"Copyleft uses copyright law, but flips it over to serve the opposite
of its usual purpose: instead of a means of privatizing software, it becomes
a means of keeping software free. The central idea of copyleft is that we
give everyone permission to run the program, copy the program, modify the
program, and distribute modified versions--but not permission to add restrictions
of their own." (http://www.gnu.org/gnu/thegnuproject.html)
Our notice is an adaptation of the copyleft philosophy, a variation
on the theme. It preserves the basic features of copyleft, especially the
notion of reversal that is already declared in the name: current copyright
laws are used in order to permit what they usually prohibit (the reproduction
of the work and its social use) and prohibit what they usually require (the
restriction of the work's circulation).
As we explained many times, we claim our copyright on the work in order to
prevent someone else from putting his or her copyright, becoming its proprietor
and adding restrictions to its use. To us, this is the kernel of copyleft.
We practise a radical extension of the notion of fair use.
Fair use is "a legal principle that defines the limitations on exclusive
rights of copyright holders" (http://www.indiana.edu/~ccumc/mmfumas/tsld010.htm).
To give a few examples: this definition includes quotation of excerpts of
a work in the context of a review or a critical essay, educational use of
a text, parody, private copy of a text that was legally purchased etc.
In the proprietary/capitalistic view, purchase is the rule and fair use is
the exception. In fact, as Ivan Hoffman wrote, "fair use should never
be relied on since it is, by definition, a defense to be raised when you are
sued. And no one on the face of the planet can ever say with any assurance,
that a given use will be deemed a fair use." (http://www.ivanhoffman.com/napster.html).
On the contrary, in our view, fair use is the rule (for it coincides with
all social use) while purchase of our books is the exception, and is left
to choice of the public. This exception allows us to earn our living.
When you buy one of our books, you are chosing to reward our efforts, however,
you are not obliged to do so: alternatively, you may copy the book, download
it etc. What you may not do is to add restrictions to this liberty.
Among
the possible restrictions (i.e. the uses we do not deem as automatically fair)
we count commercial use, use for profit. This definitions covers many cases,
ranging from the mere sale of copies to cinema or television adaptation or
the purchase of foreign rights for publication abroad. Let's distinguis one
case from another:
A- as far as cinema adaption etc. is concerned, any use entails the purchase
of rights. This is outside the realms of fair use and copyleft. Our notice
permits fair use but obliges those who want to use our work for the sake of
gain to negotiate with us. This protection is absolutely necessary to prohibit
any exploitation or parasitic use of our work. The struggle against
exploitation, the fight for a fair remuneration of labour, is the cornerstone
of the history of the Left, the trade unions and social emancipation.
B - as far as sale of the text is concerned, we deem it as unfair to make
other people pay for something that was gotten for free, e.g. downloaded from
our website. By what right would anyone ask money, since there was neither
any work to reward nor investment to recover?
If people have to pay for fair use, that's no fair use. Should libraries charge
for books instead of allowing people to look them up for free or even borrow
them, they wouldn't be libraries, they'd be bookstores.
We think that the only licit, reasonable reward is the refund of expenses
(photocopies, purchase of a CD-Rom etc.).
This is the main difference between our application of the copyleft principle
and the one represented by GPL and GFDL. Of course these licenses contain
some formulations that match our praxis, but they contain others that are
in stark contrast with it, like this one:
"You may copy and distribute the Document in any medium, either commercially
or noncommercially, provided that this License, the copyright notices,
and the license notice saying this License applies to the Document are reproduced
in all copies, and that you add no other conditions whatsoever to those of
this License. You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the
reading or further copying of the copies you make or distribute. However,
you may accept compensation in exchange for copies." (emphasis
mine, http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl.txt)
We think that this GFDL article does not give a sufficient answer for the
specific features of an editorial product. At the end of the day, GFDL
is an attempt to adapt GPL, which was developed in the context of software
programming.
In the manifold world of cultural production many experiments are yet to be
done in order to find a reliable and effective application of copyleft. Our
notice is also far from being perfect, it is still too vague, it must be discussed
and improved. Cultural production is multifarious, technologies are so different
from each other, languages are nomadic and the ways of consumption are multiform.
As a cultural product, software is very different from a novel.
In the case of novels, even if authors have the duty to explain their methods
and the genesis of a book in full details (which is tantamount to making its
"source code" available for other people to modify it), we don't
think that this is the focus of experimentation. Unlike in the realm of free
software, where the emphasis lays on re-programmation and modification, in
the realm of books to read a novel is still more important than to change
it.
Logically speaking, it is sensible and legitimate that a programmer charges
people for providing them with the software s/he modified: that money is the
reward for the work s/he's done.
On the contrary, as we wrote above, it would strike us as senseless and illegitimate
to charge people for something they can alternatively get for free.
Anyway, what matters is that we all keep working on the sharing of knowledge
and the social use of cultural products. You may call it "copyleft",
you may call it "fair use", you may call it "Frank" or
"Susan", it's not important. The principle is the same underneath
all applications.
25 April 2003, 58th Anniversary of the Liberation of Italy from the Nazi
occupation.
For further details check "Copyleft
Explained to Children" and "Publishers
have everything to gain by adopting copyleft".
