[GOAL] Re: libre vs open - general language issues

[Nicolas Pettiaux]

Dear Heather,

Thanks for your interest.

If for my grand father Pierre Gilbert, he had passed away, he was for 
nod dead for more than 70 years. Hence, his works were not in the public 
domain and we had many discussions with the "ayant droits" (words you'll 
understand as French speaker) for me "right stealers", aka publishers in 
this case, that, even if they did some work, did a very little work in 
comparision to the author's work, and do claim that the "own" some 
rights. I had to convince my mother and her brothers and sisters of the 
value to open the works.

Now, André Sterling and Philippe Roberts-Jones are old (91) but living 
people. The case is even more interesting. On their behalf, I contact 
the "other right owners" and claim that the author want to put their own 
works accessible to anyone.

Why not the public domain ? Because this notion does not exist here. We 
do not have "copyright" but "droit d'auteur", which is different. Most 
of the time, it is considered "slightly different" but I view it (and I 
am not alone) as fundamentaly different from the "copyright". Here the 
author remains indefinitively the owner of the moral rights. He can 
perhaps sell the "patrimonial rights" (that allow to sell derivative 
from the works) but not the moral rights.

Secondly, with the CC-By-SA I want the work to contribute to the 
virtuous circle that Wikipedia uses, based on the concept of copyleft 
that Richard Stallman and Eben Moglen have created. Averyone has the 
right to sell the works, to contribute to them, to make additions. But 
in turn everyone else ALSO have the rights to do the same with the 
extended works. No one can restrict the rights of anyone else to extend 
and resell the works. This is not true with the public domain. Some one 
can restrict the rights og the other to do what he received as right to 
do.

I believe but I am ready to be contradicted, that CC-BY-SA does not put 
any restriction on further distribution (even as sold works) but on the 
contrary makes sure that no one is entitled to restrict any distribution 
rights.

I do completely agree, as you state, that any knowledge, especially 
scholarly knowledge, and the works of the historians that my grand 
father, the aegyptologist Pierre Gilbert and the art historian Philippe 
Roberts-Jones are, as well as the engineer André Sterling, are scholarly 
works, but not only (there are novels, theater screenplays, poems and 
others) belong to the human culture.

I do also agree that there may be circumstances where some works should 
not be usable without restriction because that may impede on someone 
(especially a living person) rights. But as you have said, the picture 
may well have been first inappropriately put in public spaces.

About the consideration with finances, as clearly said by Peter Suber in 
his "Open Access" book, the academics, people whose work is to teach and 
transmit knowledge, at least them, do not write for a living. This may 
also be true for other people, like the journalists who are, I supposed 
often, paid once, to write their works) do NOT depend on their works 
primarily to make a living. This may well be a particularity of all 
those people producing knowledge (the academics), more than many other 
who are "creating new works" (that, often I see are not knowledge but 
more pleasure works that contribute to the culture) in the arts or 
humanities (I include novels, music, pictures, paintings and movie 
makers).

I think it is a mistake to consider all these works (from the academics) 
and for the "creators" under the same laws. They are of completely 
different natures. And shoud probably be treated as such.

But this opens discussions that we may contribute to but will go beyond 
the circle of this list.

best regards,

Dr Nicolas Pettiaux

-- 
Nicolas Pettiaux, phd  - nicolas at pettiaux.be
Open at work - Une Société libre utilise des outils libres