<p>Tools of Conviviality, Ivan Illich (197?) <ahref="https://kok.memoryoftheworld.org/Ivan%20Illich/Tools%20of%20Conviviality%20(476)/Tools%20of%20Conviviality%20-%20Ivan%20Illich.pdf">https://kok.memoryoftheworld.org/Ivan%20Illich/Tools%20of%20Conviviality%20(476)/Tools%20of%20Conviviality%20-%20Ivan%20Illich.pdf</a></p>
Tools of Conviviality, Ivan Illich (197?) <https://kok.memoryoftheworld.org/Ivan%20Illich/Tools%20of%20Conviviality%20(476)/Tools%20of%20Conviviality%20-%20Ivan%20Illich.pdf>
<p>Tools of Conviviality, Ivan Illich (197?) <ahref="https://kok.memoryoftheworld.org/Ivan%20Illich/Tools%20of%20Conviviality%20(476)/Tools%20of%20Conviviality%20-%20Ivan%20Illich.pdf">https://kok.memoryoftheworld.org/Ivan%20Illich/Tools%20of%20Conviviality%20(476)/Tools%20of%20Conviviality%20-%20Ivan%20Illich.pdf</a></p>
There is so much confusion and misunderstanding about all these elements because they manifest and materialise differently at several levels, via a process of rationalisation that leads to the fragmentation of cultural freedom into new codes of meaning, the ideological and emotional nature
of which can be contradictory to or incompatible with each other. As a consequence, free culture ends up being simply many different things at once:
@ -9,5 +10,6 @@ of which can be contradictory to or incompatible with each other. As a consequen
* A lifestyle, and sometimes fashionable statement to go along with the marketing of all things free and open;
* An economic model that tries to reconcile the legacy of radical anti-property art practice with the reformist nature of social critique;
* An aesthetic in the sense of an audiovisual language, like meme culture, but also a number of novelty appropriative frameworks ranging from semionauts to circulationism.
<p>There is so much confusion and misunderstanding about all these elements because they manifest and materialise differently at several levels, via a process of rationalisation that leads to the fragmentation of cultural freedom into new codes of meaning, the ideological and emotional nature of which can be contradictory to or incompatible with each other. As a consequence, free culture ends up being simply many different things at once:</p>
<ul>
<li>A toolkit for artists to expand their practice and free themselves from consumerist workflows;</li>
@ -23,6 +24,7 @@
<li>An economic model that tries to reconcile the legacy of radical anti-property art practice with the reformist nature of social critique;</li>
<li>An aesthetic in the sense of an audiovisual language, like meme culture, but also a number of novelty appropriative frameworks ranging from semionauts to circulationism.</li>
<p>There is so much confusion and misunderstanding about all these elements because they manifest and materialise differently at several levels, via a process of rationalisation that leads to the fragmentation of cultural freedom into new codes of meaning, the ideological and emotional nature of which can be contradictory to or incompatible with each other. As a consequence, free culture ends up being simply many different things at once:</p>
<ul>
<li>A toolkit for artists to expand their practice and free themselves from consumerist workflows;</li>
@ -90,6 +102,7 @@ a{
<li>An economic model that tries to reconcile the legacy of radical anti-property art practice with the reformist nature of social critique;</li>
<li>An aesthetic in the sense of an audiovisual language, like meme culture, but also a number of novelty appropriative frameworks ranging from semionauts to circulationism.</li>
* "A license for software and other kinds of works."
* "**Developers** that use the GNU GPL protect your rights with two steps: (1) assert copyright on the software, and (2) offer you this License giving you legal permission to copy, distribute and/or modify it."
* “The **Program**” refers to any copyrightable work licensed under this License. Each licensee is addressed as “you”. “Licensees” and “recipients” may be individuals or organizations."
* "The “**source code**” for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. “Object code” means any non-source form of a work."
* "This License explicitly affirms your unlimited permission to run the unmodified Program."
* "Conveying Non-Source Forms" = hardware.
* "Termination" — gives very specific information on days and procedure.
* An “entity transaction” is a transaction transferring control of an organization, or substantially all assets of one, or subdividing an organization, or merging organizations. If propagation of a covered work results from an entity transaction, each party to that transaction who receives a copy of the work also receives whatever licenses to the work the party's predecessor in interest had or could give under the previous paragraph, plus a right to possession of the Corresponding Source of the work from the predecessor in interest, if the predecessor has it or can get it with reasonable efforts.
* Each contributor grants you a non-exclusive, **worldwide**, royalty-free patent license under the contributor's essential patent claims, to make, use, sell, offer for sale, import and otherwise run, modify and propagate the contents of its contributor version.
* A patent license is “**discriminatory**” if it does not include within the scope of its coverage, prohibits the exercise of, or is conditioned on the non-exercise of one or more of the rights that are specifically granted under this License. — (License vs Patent: A patent is a legal right to exclude others from doing (making, using, selling) etc. what the patent covers. The legal right is owned by the patent owner (with some exceptions). On the other hand, a license is a legal right to not be excluded from doing what the patent covers. The license is granted by the patent owner to the licensee (with some exceptions), usually in exchange for something that benefits the patent owner.)
* “Licensees” and “recipients” may be **individuals** or **organizations**.
* "The “**source code**” for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it.
* "**Termination**" — gives very specific information on days and procedure.
<li>“A license for software and other kinds of works.”</li>
<li>“<strong>Developers</strong> that use the GNU GPL protect your rights with two steps: (1) assert copyright on the software, and (2) offer you this License giving you legal permission to copy, distribute and/or modify it.”</li>
<li>“The <strong>Program</strong>” refers to any copyrightable work licensed under this License. Each licensee is addressed as “you”. “Licensees” and “recipients” may be individuals or organizations."</li>
<li>“The “<strong>source code</strong>” for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. “Object code” means any non-source form of a work."</li>
<li>“This License explicitly affirms your unlimited permission to run the unmodified Program.”</li>
<li>“Conveying Non-Source Forms” = hardware.</li>
<li>“Termination” — gives very specific information on days and procedure.</li>
<li>An “entity transaction” is a transaction transferring control of an organization, or substantially all assets of one, or subdividing an organization, or merging organizations. If propagation of a covered work results from an entity transaction, each party to that transaction who receives a copy of the work also receives whatever licenses to the work the party’s predecessor in interest had or could give under the previous paragraph, plus a right to possession of the Corresponding Source of the work from the predecessor in interest, if the predecessor has it or can get it with reasonable efforts.</li>
<li>Each contributor grants you a non-exclusive, <strong>worldwide</strong>, royalty-free patent license under the contributor’s essential patent claims, to make, use, sell, offer for sale, import and otherwise run, modify and propagate the contents of its contributor version.</li>
<li>A patent license is “<strong>discriminatory</strong>” if it does not include within the scope of its coverage, prohibits the exercise of, or is conditioned on the non-exercise of one or more of the rights that are specifically granted under this License. — (License vs Patent: A patent is a legal right to exclude others from doing (making, using, selling) etc. what the patent covers. The legal right is owned by the patent owner (with some exceptions). On the other hand, a license is a legal right to not be excluded from doing what the patent covers. The license is granted by the patent owner to the licensee (with some exceptions), usually in exchange for something that benefits the patent owner.)</li>
<li>“Licensees” and “recipients” may be <strong>individuals</strong> or <strong>organizations</strong>.</li>
<li>“The “<strong>source code</strong>” for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it.</li>
<li>“<strong>Termination</strong>” — gives very specific information on days and procedure.</li>
<li>“A license for software and other kinds of works.”</li>
<li>“<strong>Developers</strong> that use the GNU GPL protect your rights with two steps: (1) assert copyright on the software, and (2) offer you this License giving you legal permission to copy, distribute and/or modify it.”</li>
<li>“The <strong>Program</strong>” refers to any copyrightable work licensed under this License. Each licensee is addressed as “you”. “Licensees” and “recipients” may be individuals or organizations."</li>
<li>“The “<strong>source code</strong>” for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. “Object code” means any non-source form of a work."</li>
<li>“This License explicitly affirms your unlimited permission to run the unmodified Program.”</li>
<li>“Conveying Non-Source Forms” = hardware.</li>
<li>“Termination” — gives very specific information on days and procedure.</li>
<li>An “entity transaction” is a transaction transferring control of an organization, or substantially all assets of one, or subdividing an organization, or merging organizations. If propagation of a covered work results from an entity transaction, each party to that transaction who receives a copy of the work also receives whatever licenses to the work the party’s predecessor in interest had or could give under the previous paragraph, plus a right to possession of the Corresponding Source of the work from the predecessor in interest, if the predecessor has it or can get it with reasonable efforts.</li>
<li>Each contributor grants you a non-exclusive, <strong>worldwide</strong>, royalty-free patent license under the contributor’s essential patent claims, to make, use, sell, offer for sale, import and otherwise run, modify and propagate the contents of its contributor version.</li>
<li>A patent license is “<strong>discriminatory</strong>” if it does not include within the scope of its coverage, prohibits the exercise of, or is conditioned on the non-exercise of one or more of the rights that are specifically granted under this License. — (License vs Patent: A patent is a legal right to exclude others from doing (making, using, selling) etc. what the patent covers. The legal right is owned by the patent owner (with some exceptions). On the other hand, a license is a legal right to not be excluded from doing what the patent covers. The license is granted by the patent owner to the licensee (with some exceptions), usually in exchange for something that benefits the patent owner.)</li>
<li>“Licensees” and “recipients” may be <strong>individuals</strong> or <strong>organizations</strong>.</li>
<li>“The “<strong>source code</strong>” for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it.</li>
<li>“<strong>Termination</strong>” — gives very specific information on days and procedure.</li>
<p>I [Aymeric Mansoux] found it mentionned with the mark <em>“<L>”</em> instead of <em>“(L)”</em> in the lyrics of a filk song 17 inspired by the Dune science fiction saga by American author Frank Herbert. The lyrics were signed <em>“<L> 1992 by Jeremy Buhler”</em> with a note at the end of the file <em>“PS - <L> means copyleft”</em>.</p>
<blockquote>
I found it mentionned with the mark <em>“<L>”</em> instead of <em>“(L)”</em> in the lyrics of a filk song 17 inspired by the Dune science fiction saga by American author Frank Herbert. The lyrics were signed <em>“<L> 1992 by Jeremy Buhler”</em> with a note at the end of the file <em>“PS - <L> means copyleft”</em>.
Morton developed an approach he called COPY-IT-RIGHT, an anti-copyright approach to making and freely sharing Media art. The Distribution Religion and Morton's individual and collaborative Media art works were released under his COPY-IT-RIGHT license. COPY-IT-RIGHT encouraged people to make faithful copies, caring for and distributing the work as widely as possible.
<p>Morton developed an approach he called COPY-IT-RIGHT, an anti-copyright approach to making and freely sharing Media art. The Distribution Religion and Morton’s individual and collaborative Media art works were released under his COPY-IT-RIGHT license. COPY-IT-RIGHT encouraged people to make faithful copies, caring for and distributing the work as widely as possible.</p>
<blockquote>
Morton developed an approach he called COPY-IT-RIGHT, an anti-copyright approach to making and freely sharing Media art. The Distribution Religion and Morton’s individual and collaborative Media art works were released under his COPY-IT-RIGHT license. COPY-IT-RIGHT encouraged people to make faithful copies, caring for and distributing the work as widely as possible.
<p>(…) [O]ne day in 1984 Stallman received by mail a programming manual that had been borrowed by American hacker and computer artist Don Hopkins. On the envelope a stickers reading “Copyleft (L)” was used to seal the small package. Hopkins had bought a pack of stickers at a science fiction convention, where hackers, including Stallman, often gathered and where it was common for them to organise and share rooms, notably for “@” parties in which people with email addresses could meet each other. 14 According to Hopkins, at that time the term copyleft was not part of the hacker culture, and the stickers had been purchased in the dealer’s room of one convention with other comics, political, and satirical stickers and buttons. 15 Knowing Stallman’s appreciation for such things, Hopkins had decorated the letter in a similar spirit. Little did he know that eventually the sticker and the pseudo-copyright statement he had written as a joke (Figure 5.2), would inspire Stallman to use the word copyleft to describe the properties of the GPL. 16 This is how copyleft, the symbol of rebellious cultural practices, ended up being claimed as a term to describe a particular mechanism of free software licensing.</p>
<blockquote>
(…) [O]ne day in 1984 Stallman received by mail a programming manual that had been borrowed by American hacker and computer artist Don Hopkins. On the envelope a stickers reading “Copyleft (L)” was used to seal the small package. Hopkins had bought a pack of stickers at a science fiction convention, where hackers, including Stallman, often gathered and where it was common for them to organise and share rooms, notably for “@” parties in which people with email addresses could meet each other. 14 According to Hopkins, at that time the term copyleft was not part of the hacker culture, and the stickers had been purchased in the dealer’s room of one convention with other comics, political, and satirical stickers and buttons. 15 Knowing Stallman’s appreciation for such things, Hopkins had decorated the letter in a similar spirit. Little did he know that eventually the sticker and the pseudo-copyright statement he had written as a joke (Figure 5.2), would inspire Stallman to use the word copyleft to describe the properties of the GPL. 16 This is how copyleft, the symbol of rebellious cultural practices, ended up being claimed as a term to describe a particular mechanism of free software licensing.
</blockquote>
<p>Aymeric Mansoux, Sandbox Culture (2017) - p. 211-212</p>
This page includes examples of different people that were exploring attitudes/gestures/(social)-movements towards copyright, before the term "copyleft" was introduced as a legal tool. The techno-legal "hack" of copyleft was introduced by Richard Stallman in 1984. But it's interesting to see how these examples are all created before that, and were already exploring attitudes of being critical towards copyright laws.
<p>This page includes examples of different people that were exploring attitudes/gestures/(social)-movements towards copyright, before the term “copyleft” was introduced as a legal tool. The techno-legal “hack” of copyleft was introduced by Richard Stallman in 1984. But it’s interesting to see how these examples are all created before that, and were already exploring attitudes of being critical towards copyright laws.</p>
<p>I [Aymeric Mansoux] found it mentionned with the mark <em>“<L>”</em> instead of <em>“(L)”</em> in the lyrics of a filk song 17 inspired by the Dune science fiction saga by American author Frank Herbert. The lyrics were signed <em>“<L> 1992 by Jeremy Buhler”</em> with a note at the end of the file <em>“PS - <L> means copyleft”</em>.</p>
<blockquote>
I found it mentionned with the mark <em>“<L>”</em> instead of <em>“(L)”</em> in the lyrics of a filk song 17 inspired by the Dune science fiction saga by American author Frank Herbert. The lyrics were signed <em>“<L> 1992 by Jeremy Buhler”</em> with a note at the end of the file <em>“PS - <L> means copyleft”</em>.
</blockquote>
<p>Aymeric Mansoux, Sandbox Culture (2017)</p>
</body>
</html>
@ -104,7 +115,9 @@ a{
</style>
</head>
<body>
<p>Morton developed an approach he called COPY-IT-RIGHT, an anti-copyright approach to making and freely sharing Media art. The Distribution Religion and Morton’s individual and collaborative Media art works were released under his COPY-IT-RIGHT license. COPY-IT-RIGHT encouraged people to make faithful copies, caring for and distributing the work as widely as possible.</p>
<blockquote>
Morton developed an approach he called COPY-IT-RIGHT, an anti-copyright approach to making and freely sharing Media art. The Distribution Religion and Morton’s individual and collaborative Media art works were released under his COPY-IT-RIGHT license. COPY-IT-RIGHT encouraged people to make faithful copies, caring for and distributing the work as widely as possible.
<p>(…) [O]ne day in 1984 Stallman received by mail a programming manual that had been borrowed by American hacker and computer artist Don Hopkins. On the envelope a stickers reading “Copyleft (L)” was used to seal the small package. Hopkins had bought a pack of stickers at a science fiction convention, where hackers, including Stallman, often gathered and where it was common for them to organise and share rooms, notably for “@” parties in which people with email addresses could meet each other. 14 According to Hopkins, at that time the term copyleft was not part of the hacker culture, and the stickers had been purchased in the dealer’s room of one convention with other comics, political, and satirical stickers and buttons. 15 Knowing Stallman’s appreciation for such things, Hopkins had decorated the letter in a similar spirit. Little did he know that eventually the sticker and the pseudo-copyright statement he had written as a joke (Figure 5.2), would inspire Stallman to use the word copyleft to describe the properties of the GPL. 16 This is how copyleft, the symbol of rebellious cultural practices, ended up being claimed as a term to describe a particular mechanism of free software licensing.</p>
<blockquote>
(…) [O]ne day in 1984 Stallman received by mail a programming manual that had been borrowed by American hacker and computer artist Don Hopkins. On the envelope a stickers reading “Copyleft (L)” was used to seal the small package. Hopkins had bought a pack of stickers at a science fiction convention, where hackers, including Stallman, often gathered and where it was common for them to organise and share rooms, notably for “@” parties in which people with email addresses could meet each other. 14 According to Hopkins, at that time the term copyleft was not part of the hacker culture, and the stickers had been purchased in the dealer’s room of one convention with other comics, political, and satirical stickers and buttons. 15 Knowing Stallman’s appreciation for such things, Hopkins had decorated the letter in a similar spirit. Little did he know that eventually the sticker and the pseudo-copyright statement he had written as a joke (Figure 5.2), would inspire Stallman to use the word copyleft to describe the properties of the GPL. 16 This is how copyleft, the symbol of rebellious cultural practices, ended up being claimed as a term to describe a particular mechanism of free software licensing.
</blockquote>
<p>Aymeric Mansoux, Sandbox Culture (2017) - p. 211-212</p>
<p>This page includes examples of different people that were exploring attitudes/gestures/(social)-movements towards copyright, before the term “copyleft” was introduced as a legal tool. The techno-legal “hack” of copyleft was introduced by Richard Stallman in 1984. But it’s interesting to see how these examples are all created before that, and were already exploring attitudes of being critical towards copyright laws.</p>
Snippets of technofeminist writings, in which statements are made that speak about authorship, property, open access, sharing and other open-license related subjects.
<p>Snippets of technofeminist writings, in which statements are made that speak about authorship, property, open access, sharing and other open-license related subjects.</p>
<p>Snippets of technofeminist writings, in which statements are made that speak about authorship, property, open access, sharing and other open-license related subjects.</p>