Automated updates: 2022-03-18
This commit is contained in:
John Colagioia
parent
10490e1901
commit
e7d21c1e84
|
|
@ -11,17 +11,17 @@ offset: -60%
|
|||
|
||||
Since this topic has come up a few times in conversation, recently, I assume that people (especially software developers) need better information.
|
||||
|
||||
As a quick note before I get started, a small amount of this content was grabbed from my Quora answer on [<i class="fab fa-quora"></i> What are ways to become a web developer/designer for someone working full-time in a different field?](https://www.quora.com/What-are-ways-to-become-a-web-developer-designer-for-someone-working-full-time-in-a-different-field), which I originally answered on Saturday, May 3rd, 2014. Not much, since that was an unrelated topic and it has all been adapted, but if you want to dig into that career end of things, you might want to give that a quick read, too.
|
||||
As a quick note before I get started, a small amount of this content was grabbed from my Quora answer on [<i class="fab fa-quora"></i> What are ways to become a web developer/designer for someone working full-time in a different field?](https://www.quora.com/What-are-ways-to-become-a-web-developer-designer-for-someone-working-full-time-in-a-different-field), which I originally answered on Saturday, May 3rd, 2014. I don't use much, since that was an unrelated topic, and it has all been adapted, but if you want to dig into that career end of things, you might want to give that a quick read, too.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
I somehow end up involved in a lot of projects where a design needs a new color and it seems like a lot of people---developers, especially, but not exclusively---are terrified to work with color. But, here's the thing: It's possible to fake your way through most decisions like this with math.
|
||||
I somehow end up involved in a lot of projects where a design needs a new color, and it seems like a lot of people---developers, especially, but not exclusively---are terrified to work with color. But, here's the thing: It's possible to fake your way through most decisions like this with math.
|
||||
|
||||
The obstacle, though, is that the industry mostly operates on the [RGB color model](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RGB_color_model), which is *terrible* for showing relationships. It works well from a display standpoint, because most humans physically see the world through sensors detecting red, green, and blue light. However, there are at least two confounding factors.
|
||||
|
||||
First, our brain obviously reinterprets the physical input in a way that doesn't match reality. An important example of this is that visible colors are transmitted as photons with wavelengths from about 380 (violet) to 740 (red) nanometers. However, despite red and violet being as far apart in the spectrum as possible, we *see* those two colors to be as similar as yellow (580nm) is to green (530nm).
|
||||
First, our brain obviously reinterprets the physical input in a way that doesn't match reality. An important example of this is that visible colors are transmitted as photons with wavelengths from about 380 (violet) to 740 (red) nanometers. However, despite red and violet being as far apart in the spectrum as possible, we *see* those two colors to be as similar as yellow (580 nm) is to green (530 nm).
|
||||
|
||||
The other big problem is that---surely related to the brain lying to you---as you've surely seen if you've tried to pick a color off a single on-screen pallete, is that RGB color spaces feel strangely asymmetrical, with reds and purples seeming to dominate the spectrum.
|
||||
The other big problem is that---surely related to the brain lying to you---as you've surely seen if you've tried to pick a color off a single on-screen palette, is that RGB color spaces feel strangely asymmetrical, with reds and purples seeming to dominate the spectrum.
|
||||
|
||||
Something similar goes for the [CMY color model](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CMY_color_model), commonly used in printing, with the most recognizable difference being that two of the three component colors (cyan and magenta) aren't generally a part of the natural world.
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -33,9 +33,9 @@ OK, so what can we do instead?
|
|||
|
||||
## Hue Can Do It!
|
||||
|
||||
The biggest change we need to make is to describe colors based on how they look, rather than how they can be broken down into components. The relevant broad terms, there, are [hue](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hue), [colorfulness](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorfulness), and [lightness](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightness). Lightness talks about how closely the color resembles black or white. Colorfulness deals with how closely the color resembles a gray of some lightness value. And hue involves how well the color can be described as a common color, such as red, blue, or yellow.
|
||||
The biggest change that we need to make is to describe colors based on how they look, rather than how they can be broken down into components. The relevant broad terms, there, are [hue](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hue), [colorfulness](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorfulness), and [lightness](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightness). Lightness talks about how closely the color resembles black or white. Colorfulness deals with how closely the color resembles a gray of some lightness value. And hue involves how well the color can be described as a common color, such as red, blue, or yellow.
|
||||
|
||||
If every color in an image is the same (within some tolerance, of course) hue, that's a monochrome image. If we change the colorfulness and lightness together, we're creating a shade (mixing the color with black) or tint (mixing the color with white), because those change the lightness while reducing the colorfulness. If we change the colorfulness without the lightness, we're adding or removing a neutral gray. I can't find a term for changing the lightness without changing the colorfulness, but that's what you generally see in a "monochrome color scheme."
|
||||
If every color in an image is the same---within some tolerance, of course---hue, that's a monochrome image. If we change the colorfulness and lightness together, we're creating a shade (mixing the color with black) or tint (mixing the color with white), because those change the lightness while reducing the colorfulness. If we change the colorfulness without the lightness, we're adding or removing a neutral gray. I can't find a term for changing the lightness without changing the colorfulness, but that's what you generally see in a "monochrome color scheme."
|
||||
|
||||
The hue, as mentioned, is a number that gives a sense of how we would describe a color.
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -60,7 +60,7 @@ Let's look at our colors above, again, this time in terms of hue, saturation (th
|
|||
|#e27d60|13.4°|69.1%|63.1%|
|
||||
|#085dcb|213.8°|92.4%|41.4%|
|
||||
|
||||
Hopefully, that's a bit more enlightening. The first color is a red-orange or a rust that's somewhat dull. The second is a bold but medium-lightness cyanish-blue. Right off the top, I think it's obvious that this is a useful notation, just because it gives a better intuition for what the color looks like, if you can remember most of that table above. And, y'know, you can just look it up quickly; no shame in that.
|
||||
I hope that's a bit more enlightening. The first color is a red-orange or a rust that's somewhat dull. The second is a bold but medium-lightness cyanish-blue. Right off the top, I think it's obvious that this is a useful notation, just because it gives a better intuition for what the color looks like, if you can remember most of that table above. And, y'know, you can just look it up quickly; no shame in that.
|
||||
|
||||
Have you ever heard a designer complain that the boss or client "would like the blue to be bluer"? They *might* want the hue closer to 240°, but more likely is that they want to increase the saturation. They want the color to be "softer"? They probably mean bringing the lightness closer to its neighboring colors.
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -71,7 +71,7 @@ Anyway, let's pick our third color! I'm going to assume that the orange color i
|
|||
|Orange|13.4°|69.1%|63.1%|
|
||||
|Blue|213.8°|92.4%|41.4%|
|
||||
|Difference|200.4°|23.3%|-21.7%|
|
||||
|Orange - Δ|173.0°|45.8%|84.8|
|
||||
|Orange — Δ|173.0°|45.8%|84.8|
|
||||
|
||||
{% imgr three colors|example-color-swatch-2.png|three colors %}
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -81,9 +81,9 @@ And, of course, keep in mind that the monochrome discussion applies here, too:
|
|||
|
||||
There's also a good chance we can take intermediate colors, too. Let's say 93.2° hue, 57.45% saturation, 73.95% lightness? That's a faded yellow-green (#b9e396), which you can draw on the sample on your own time.
|
||||
|
||||
This approach is referred to as choosing "adjacent colors," even though the colors are pretty far apart. It's what I suggested earlier, that you have one "main" color and then one color to either side, the same angle away. You'll occasionally hear the term "triadic" used in cases like this, where the main color is far (more than 90°) from its neighbors.
|
||||
This approach is referred to as choosing "adjacent colors," even though the colors are pretty far apart. It's what I suggested earlier, that you have one "main" color and then one color to either side, the same angle away. You'll occasionally hear the term "triadic" used in cases like this, where the main color is far---more than 90°---from its neighbors.
|
||||
|
||||
Oh, and there's one other important color to consider: The **complementary** color. Not "compl**i**ment," like free things that say nice things about you---look up the joke about "complimentary peanuts" before pointing out the grammar mistake---but the opposite of a thing that makes it whole. Complementary colors are those whose hues are 180° apart from each other, so the complement to our rusty orange is 193.4° (#60c5e2), which is sort of a sky blue, and you'll hopefully notice that it's right between the bold blue and the cyan.
|
||||
Oh, and there's one other important color to consider: The **complementary** color. Not "compl**i**ment," like free things that say nice things about you---look up the joke about "complimentary peanuts" before pointing out the grammar mistake---but the opposite of a thing that makes it whole. Complementary colors are those whose hues are 180° apart from each other, so the complement to our rusty orange is 193.4° (#60c5e2), which is sort of a sky blue, and you'll notice that it's right between the bold blue and the cyan.
|
||||
|
||||
Generally speaking, complementary colors are too bold to use as more than an occasional accent or one color has a saturation or lightness that makes it feel muted. But that accent generally works inside any color scheme.
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -115,7 +115,7 @@ I recommend trying the same thing---you can adapt the conversion algorithm/formu
|
|||
|
||||
## Contrast
|
||||
|
||||
An important aspect of what makes a good color scheme, beyond just the colors looking acceptable next to each other. The World-Wide Web Consortium [suggests](https://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-WCAG20-20081211/#contrast-ratiodef) calculating contrast as (approximately) the ratio of [luminances](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminance), which...OK, this is a little bit intricate.
|
||||
An important aspect of what makes a good color scheme, beyond just the colors looking acceptable next to each other. The World-Wide Web Consortium [suggests](https://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-WCAG20-20081211/#contrast-ratiodef) calculating contrast as (approximately) the ratio of [luminances](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminance), which...OK, this is a little intricate.
|
||||
|
||||
* Take each of the three color components (R, G, and B) as fractions between zero and one (i.e., the integer ÷ 255);
|
||||
* For values less than or equal to 0.03928, divide by 12.92;
|
||||
|
|
@ -128,7 +128,7 @@ An important aspect of what makes a good color scheme, beyond just the colors lo
|
|||
[This Stack Overflow answer](https://stackoverflow.com/a/9733420/3438854) converts that mess to fairly straightforward JavaScript.
|
||||
|
||||
```javascript
|
||||
function luminanace(r, g, b) {
|
||||
function luminance(r, g, b) {
|
||||
var a = [r, g, b].map(function (v) {
|
||||
v /= 255;
|
||||
return v <= 0.03928
|
||||
|
|
@ -138,8 +138,8 @@ function luminanace(r, g, b) {
|
|||
return a[0] * 0.2126 + a[1] * 0.7152 + a[2] * 0.0722;
|
||||
}
|
||||
function contrast(rgb1, rgb2) {
|
||||
var lum1 = luminanace(rgb1[0], rgb1[1], rgb1[2]);
|
||||
var lum2 = luminanace(rgb2[0], rgb2[1], rgb2[2]);
|
||||
var lum1 = luminance(rgb1[0], rgb1[1], rgb1[2]);
|
||||
var lum2 = luminance(rgb2[0], rgb2[1], rgb2[2]);
|
||||
var brightest = Math.max(lum1, lum2);
|
||||
var darkest = Math.min(lum1, lum2);
|
||||
return (brightest + 0.05)
|
||||
|
|
@ -151,9 +151,9 @@ If the results are better than 50% for each pair of colors in use, then the colo
|
|||
|
||||
## Color Blindness
|
||||
|
||||
Closely related to ensuring contrast is validating color schemes for people with different kinds of color blindness. For example, I was once on a project where a client was using their corporate branding colors to highlight the most recent selections in a list. Our team's problem with fixing problems was that several people were color blind (they still are, individually, but the team no longer exists...) and so couldn't see much difference between the colors they gave us.
|
||||
Closely related to ensuring contrast is validating color schemes for people with different kinds of color blindness. For example, I was once on a project where a client was using their corporate branding colors to highlight the most recent selections in a list. Our team's problem with fixing problems was that several people were color-blind (they still are, individually, but the team no longer exists...) and so couldn't see much difference between the colors they gave us.
|
||||
|
||||
Unfortunately, converting colors to simulate color blindness is non-trivial for most programming, because it requires applying matrices to the color space. Each color "channel" (one of the technical terms for one of the R, G, or B values)is a weighted mix of magnitudes of of the three original channels.
|
||||
Unfortunately, converting colors to simulate color blindness is non-trivial for most programming, because it requires applying matrices to the color space. Each color "channel"---one of the technical terms for one of the R, G, or B values---is a weighted mix of magnitudes of the three original channels.
|
||||
|
||||
We can do something like this, assuming that the "matrix" is a linear array with all the rows combined, for simpler notation.
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -264,9 +264,9 @@ So, for every color scheme we generate, we actually have *nine* schemes to valid
|
|||
|
||||
## Putting It Together
|
||||
|
||||
That might sound daunting, but bear in mind that most of the joy of software is that that we only need to work out (or find, as the case may be) the tedious math like this once, and we can apply that solution in bulk.
|
||||
That might sound daunting, but bear in mind that most of the joy of software is that we only need to work out (or find, as the case may be) the tedious math like this once, and we can apply that solution in bulk.
|
||||
|
||||
So, given what we know, we should be able to accept a primary color, angle, and geometry (adjacent, triadic, etc.), generate a color scheme, and validate---possibly adjust, if you're willing to have code iterate on saturation and lightness---the contrast of the resulting color scheme and how it will look to each of the eight kinds of people who are color blind.
|
||||
So, given what we know, we should be able to accept a primary color, angle, and geometry (adjacent, triadic, etc.), generate a color scheme, and validate---possibly adjust, if you're willing to have code iterate on saturation and lightness---the contrast of the resulting color scheme and how it will look to each of the eight kinds of people who are color-blind.
|
||||
|
||||
It's still important to visually inspect the results, of course, but I'd call that a pretty long way to go without needing to think much about preference or taste.
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -294,7 +294,7 @@ If all else fails, you can also just work from Google's [Material Design](https:
|
|||
|
||||
Alternatively, if you're working on desktop software, you can't go wrong just using your target platform's design language. On Windows, that's either [Aero](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Aero) or [Fluent](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluent_Design_System). On macOS, it's [Aqua](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aqua_(user_interface)). Android uses Material Design. Unfortunately, I can't find an explicit design language for any Linux distributions, most generally just having a set of guidelines that expand whenever something new is needed. But the point is that, if you use a language that your users/readers have already learned, you'll have a much easier time *and* many decisions will have already been made for you.
|
||||
|
||||
Again, though, a lot of the above information isn't entirely under a Free Culture license. If you've seen better material on any of these counts that has been made available under a usable license (if it allows any use, optionally under conditions of attributing the author and/or sharing any derivatives, the license should qualify), please leave a comment and I'll update this post crediting you. Heck, I'll even take mediocre material! The best I can find is [this clunker](https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Graphic_Design) on Wikibooks that...well, it needs a *lot* of love to make it into something I would feel comfortable recommending it.
|
||||
Again, though, a lot of the above information isn't entirely under a Free Culture license. If you've seen better material on any of these counts that has been made available under a usable license (if it allows any use, optionally under conditions of attributing the author and/or sharing any derivatives, the license should qualify), please leave a comment, and I'll update this post crediting you. Heck, I'll even take mediocre material! The best I can find is [this clunker](https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Graphic_Design) on Wikibooks that...well, it needs a *lot* of love to make it into something I would feel comfortable recommending it.
|
||||
|
||||
#### <i class="fas fa-palette"></i>
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -7,73 +7,74 @@ tags: [license, meta, opensource, freesoftware, gpl, creativecommons, copyleft]
|
|||
summary: What I'd like to see in a hypothetical future Free Culture license
|
||||
thumbnail: /blog/assets/hand-number-finger-community-together-handle-773437-pxhere.com.png
|
||||
offset: -25%
|
||||
proofed: true
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
As some people have been arguing over the so-called "ethical licenses" such as the [Hippocratic License](https://firstdonoharm.dev/) or MongoDB's [Server Side Public License](https://www.mongodb.com/licensing/server-side-public-license), I don't find that line of discussion *particularly* useful, but have started thinking more about what I'd like to see in a modern Free Culture license.
|
||||
As some people have argued over the so-called "ethical licenses" such as the [Hippocratic License](https://firstdonoharm.dev/) or MongoDB's [Server Side Public License](https://www.mongodb.com/licensing/server-side-public-license), I don't find that line of discussion *particularly* useful, but have started thinking more about what I'd like to see in a modern Free Culture license.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
To be clear on my disinterest in the ethical licenses, I sympathize with the desire, but don't believe that a so-called "liberal" (in the sense of fewer terms, not social philosophy) software license is a useful way to enforce "good" behavior and that the whole space opens the door for regressive moralizing attached to code. And that doesn't even get into the strange compartmentalization that we often see outside of software, where philanthropic initiatives often enable and obscure the most unethical corporate behaviors. I would much rather see ethics become a part of the software industry instead of constantly disclaiming responsibilities. If a developer has the toolkit to refuse a task---not just because that work will hurt people, but because it'll damage the developer's career prospects---that's a real solution.
|
||||
To make my disinterest in the ethical licenses clear and specific, I sympathize with the desire, but don't believe that a so-called "liberal" (in the sense of fewer terms, not social philosophy) software license makes a useful way to enforce "good" behavior and that the whole space opens the door for regressive moralizing attached to code. And that doesn't even get into the strange compartmentalization that we often see outside of software, where philanthropic initiatives often enable and obscure the most unethical corporate behaviors. I would much rather see ethics become a part of the software industry instead of constantly disclaiming responsibilities. If a developer has the toolkit to refuse a task---not just because that work will hurt people, but because it'll damage the developer's career prospects---that becomes a real solution.
|
||||
|
||||
That all said, this may never come to anything and I have no interest in pushing anything here, I'd like to kick around some ideas for a hypothetical Free Culture license of the future.
|
||||
|
||||
## Contractual
|
||||
|
||||
As I [mentioned]({% post_url 2019-12-28-licenses %}) early on in the life of this blog, the easiest way to envision a public license working and the easiest way to make it function in a court of law is to treat it and write it like a contract: If the recipient provides the [consideration](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consideration) specified in the terms of the contract, then they receive a consideration in exchange, a trade of value.
|
||||
As I [mentioned]({% post_url 2019-12-28-licenses %}) early on in the life of this blog, the easiest way to envision a public license working and the easiest way to make it function in a court of law involves treating it and writing it like a contract: If the recipient provides the [consideration](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consideration) specified in the terms of the contract, then they receive a consideration in exchange, a trade of value.
|
||||
|
||||
Too many licenses---particularly the "liberal" licenses---don't have any mutual value exchanged. The code is given...and that's it. And I don't *think* that makes them defensible in court, if it ever came to that.
|
||||
Too many licenses---particularly the "liberal" licenses---don't include any mutual value exchanged. The creator offers the code...and the "exchange" ends there. And I don't *think* that makes them defensible in court, if it ever came to that.
|
||||
|
||||
## Universality
|
||||
|
||||
For thirty years, we've watched organizations create licenses and then turn around to tell us about all the kinds of works that their licenses should *not* be used for.
|
||||
For thirty years, we've watched organizations create licenses and then turn around to tell us about all the kinds of works for which their licenses should *not* apply.
|
||||
|
||||
The Free Software Foundation's original position was that we should only worry about software running on our personal, general-purpose computers. Art and text weren't interesting. Firmware wasn't interesting. Hardware wasn't interesting. Servers weren't interesting unless you were running them. Even high-level software wasn't interesting, as long as it ran on a dedicated device where the users couldn't easily run arbitrary software of their own. Some of those deficits became problems---[TiVo](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tivoization)'s use of Linux triggering the [GNU GPL version 3](https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html) and the rise of interactive web sites triggering the [GNU Affero GPLv3](https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html)---while other issues are still ignored as someone else's problem.
|
||||
The Free Software Foundation's originally took the position that we should only worry about software running on our personal, general-purpose computers. Art and text should hold no interest. Firmware should hold no interest. Hardware should hold no interest. Servers should hold no interest...unless you ran those servers. Even high-level software should hold no interest, as long as it ran on a dedicated device where the users couldn't easily run arbitrary software of their own. Some of those deficits became problems---[TiVo](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tivoization)'s use of Linux triggering the [GNU GPL version 3](https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html) and the rise of interactive web sites triggering the [GNU Affero GPLv3](https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html)---while still ignoring other issues as someone else's problem.
|
||||
|
||||
Likewise, [Creative Commons](https://creativecommons.org/) still firmly recommends *against* using their licenses for software. And there are unrelated [open hardware licenses](https://tapr.org/?page_id=5968). And [fonts](http://scripts.sil.org/cms/scripts/page.php?site_id=nrsi&id=OFL_web). And [games](http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/ogl.html). And [databases](https://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/). There are others, too. **Many** others.
|
||||
Likewise, [Creative Commons](https://creativecommons.org/) still firmly recommends *against* using their licenses for software. And unrelated [open hardware licenses](https://tapr.org/?page_id=5968) exist. The same goes for [fonts](http://scripts.sil.org/cms/scripts/page.php?site_id=nrsi&id=OFL_web). And [games](http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/ogl.html). And [databases](https://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/). Other licenses for specific varieties of work exist, too, **many** others.
|
||||
|
||||
### What Is "Source Code," Anyway?
|
||||
### What Defines "Source Code," Anyway?
|
||||
|
||||
One of the reasons I lean so hard on the phrase "Free Culture" is that, while we tend to refer a lot to "free and open works" (for example, see [FaOW](http://faow.referata.com/wiki/Welcome_to_Free_and_Open_Works!), a catalog of such content), the idea of "open art" is...odd.
|
||||
One of the reasons I lean so hard on the phrase "Free Culture" comes from how, while we tend to refer a lot to "free and open works" (for example, see [FaOW](http://faow.referata.com/wiki/Welcome_to_Free_and_Open_Works!), a catalog of such content), the idea of "open art" seems...odd.
|
||||
|
||||
For an easy example, [Bicker](https://bicker.colagioia.net/) is software, so its source code is easy to find. That's why the term "open source" makes some sense, here.
|
||||
For an easy example, we can classify [Bicker](https://bicker.colagioia.net/) as software, so we can figure out what its source code consists of without much trouble. The term "open source" makes some sense, here, for that reason.
|
||||
|
||||
However, now take [**Seeking Refuge**]({% post_url 2019-12-14-seeking-refuge %}), my novel. I make the Markdown files available and have an entire section describing the inspirations and sources of many of the elements that contributed to the creation of the story. Is that "open"? Have I shown my "source code" for the novel? There's an entire cultural context and life-long education that would make it difficult for someone to reproduce the final story.
|
||||
However, now take [**Seeking Refuge**]({% post_url 2019-12-14-seeking-refuge %}), my novel. I make the Markdown files available and have an entire section describing the inspirations and sources of the elements that I recognize contributed to the creation of the story. Does that sufficiently "open" the story? Have I shown my "source code" for the novel? I have an entire cultural context and life-long education that would make it difficult for someone to reconstruct the final story from first principles.
|
||||
|
||||
And now let's take a step further and consider a photograph. Hang on, do I have a photograph that I can use as an example, here? Sure. Here.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
OK, that picture is now released, just like the rest of the blog, under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International License, just like it says at the bottom of the page. I would call it "Free Culture," to the extent that the picture is culture, but it's not likely anybody's definition of "open source," because...there really *isn't* any "source," except if you count the full-resolution version from the camera. I was walking and, since I was carrying my camera with me, took a picture when I saw that angle, because I liked it and am pretty sure there are no copyright entanglements in showing just the bricks and foliage.
|
||||
OK, I have now released that picture---just like the rest of the blog---under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International License, just like it says at the bottom of the page. Personally, I would call it "Free Culture," to the extent that we can call the picture "culture," but it doesn't likely overlap anybody's definition of "open source," because...no real "source" *exists* to any significant extent, except if you count the full-resolution version from the camera. I happened to walk past that spot and, since I carried my camera with me that day, took a picture when I saw that angle, because I liked it and feel confident that no copyright entanglements disrupt showing just the bricks and foliage. But I can't really provide anybody with the bricks or the lighting.
|
||||
|
||||
So, the moral of that little story is that a universal Free Culture license needs to understand that distinction and require as much "source" as possible without requiring something that might not exist.
|
||||
The moral of that little story, then, could say that a universal Free Culture license needs to understand that distinction and require as much "source" as possible without requiring something that might not exist.
|
||||
|
||||
## Strong Copyleft and Reciprocation
|
||||
|
||||
To get the definition out of the way, [copyleft](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft) is a term used to contrast with *copyright*, typically to imply that a consumer has been granted limited rights over the work, provided that they extent those same rights to others. In other words, I share this blog with you and grant you the right to edit it and share it with others, if you want, but only if you give them the same rights as I've given you.
|
||||
To get the definition out of the way, [copyleft](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft) exists in contrast with *copyright*, typically to imply that a creator has granted consumers limited rights over the work, provided that the consumers extend those same rights to others. In other words, I share this blog with you and grant you the right to edit it and share it with others, if you want, but *only* if you give them the same rights as I've given you.
|
||||
|
||||
I tend to suspect that most people who choose non-commercial licenses and even the *ethical* licenses are really looking to not be exploited. In that sense, I tend to agree with [Question Copyright](https://questioncopyright.org/cc-pro) in the analysis that copyleft prevents exploitation more efficiently than commercial restrictions: Disney might easily roll the accounting dice to claim that their motion picture adaptation of your short story is technically a non-commercial use, but they will *not* put a public license on their movie for other people (and companies) to use.
|
||||
I tend to suspect that most people who choose non-commercial licenses and even the *ethical* licenses primarily seek to not risk the exploitation of the underlying work. In that sense, I tend to agree with [Question Copyright](https://questioncopyright.org/cc-pro) in the analysis that copyleft prevents exploitation more efficiently than commercial restrictions: Disney might easily roll the accounting dice to claim that their motion picture adaptation of your short story technically resembles a non-commercial use to fit the license, but they will *not* put a public license on their movie for other people (and companies) to use and adapt.
|
||||
|
||||
Similarly, I suspect that we can solve a lot of (though not all) Hippocratic-style issues by requiring that a derivative work publicly contributes its modifications back to the source project, assuming that they're going to abide by the terms of the license at all. Even if they're not ashamed to admit to what they're doing with the code, contributing back gives the source project the ability to shame them in the public sphere.
|
||||
Similarly, I suspect that we can solve a lot of (though not all) Hippocratic-style issues by requiring that a derivative work publicly contributes its modifications back to the source project, assuming that they plan to abide by the terms of the license at all. Even if they don't feel shame to admit to what they do with the code, contributing back gives the source project the ability to shame them in the public sphere.
|
||||
|
||||
So, I'd like to see the license not only require making changes available, but offering them back to the parent.
|
||||
For those reasons, I'd like to see the license not only require making changes available, but offering them back to the parent.
|
||||
|
||||
## Clear Attribution Terms
|
||||
|
||||
The MongoDB problem, as they've stated in various places, is a fear that an Amazon-like company will take their free product and sell access to it as part of a larger service like Amazon Web Services.
|
||||
The MongoDB problem, as they've stated in various places, stems from a fear that an Amazon-like company will take their free product and sell access to it as part of a larger service like Amazon Web Services.
|
||||
|
||||
However, this seems to be the opposite of the intent of releasing a database management system at no cost. Hence, they relicensed their product to a custom license that is largely contradictory in that you can use the product for any purpose, but not for some purposes.
|
||||
However, this seems like the opposite of the intent of releasing a database management system at no cost. Hence, they re-licensed their product to a custom license that becomes largely contradictory, in that you can use the product for any purpose, but also *not* for some purposes.
|
||||
|
||||
However, this is a problem of competition and monopolization. However, if we replaced the SSPL with a strong copyleft license requiring reciprocation (as in the previous section), then Amazon (or whoever) is required to contribute back the changes they make to more easily make the database available, so the database company knows about this "threat" (assuming it's a threat) and can compete on technical terms. And to take this a step further, if you can't sign up for maybe-Amazon's hypothetical not-MongoDB service without seeing a clear link to MongoDB, who can then try to offer the same service for a competitive price, then maybe-Amazon no longer has the feared unassailable monopoly position.
|
||||
However, this really stems from a problem of competition and monopolization. However, if we replaced the SSPL with a strong copyleft license requiring reciprocation---as in the previous section---then they require Amazon (or whoever) to contribute back the changes they make to more easily make the database available, so the database company knows about this "threat" (assuming it constitutes a threat at all) and can compete on technical terms. And to take this a step further, if you can't sign up for maybe-Amazon's hypothetical not-MongoDB service without seeing a clear link to MongoDB, who can then try to offer the same service for a competitive price, then maybe-Amazon no longer has the feared unassailable monopoly position.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
There's a related but distinct problem when it comes to physical objects. If I download a 3D model for [the above book ring](https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:144660) and print one on a 3D printer, the license requires attribution. That's fine, but...where does one put legible attribution with a URL to the designer's profile on an object so small, where the largest spaces should be smooth? The object has no attribution attached, so it technically can't be used in a way that complies with the license without making changes. Licenses unfortunately ignore those issues, right now.
|
||||
We see a related but distinct problem when it comes to physical objects. If I download a 3D model for [the above book ring](https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:144660) and print one on a 3D printer, the license requires attribution. That works in theory, but...where does one put legible attribution with a URL to the designer's profile on an object so small, where the largest spaces should have smooth surfaces? The object has no attribution attached, so we technically can't use the design in a way that complies with its license without making changes. Licenses unfortunately ignore those issues, right now.
|
||||
|
||||
## Clear Patent/Trademark Guidance
|
||||
|
||||
Mozilla often comes [under](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_software_rebranded_by_Debian) [fire](https://wiki.hyperbola.info/doku.php?id=en:main:rusts_freedom_flaws) for not wanting their brands associated with compiled binaries for which they can't manage quality. This is technically true under most Free Software licenses (the GPL has an explicit option to refuse to "grant rights under trademark law"), but people only seem to notice it when certain organizations and licenses are involved.
|
||||
Mozilla often comes [under](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_software_rebranded_by_Debian) [fire](https://wiki.hyperbola.info/doku.php?id=en:main:rusts_freedom_flaws) for not wanting their brands associated with compiled binaries for which they can't manage quality. Technically, most Free Software licenses have this issue---the GPL has an explicit option to refuse to "grant rights under trademark law," for example---but people only seem to notice it when certain organizations and licenses involve themselves.
|
||||
|
||||
Patents are a similar issue, with some licenses specifically making patent grants and others...not so much. For example, the GPLv3 says:
|
||||
Patents create a similar issue, with some licenses specifically making patent grants and others...not so much. For example, the GPLv3 says:
|
||||
|
||||
> When you distribute a covered work, you grant a patent license to the recipient, and to anyone that receives any version of the work, permitting, for any and all versions of the covered work, all activities allowed or contemplated by this License, such as installing, running and distributing versions of the work, and using their output. This patent license is nonexclusive, royalty-free and worldwide, and covers all patent claims you control or have the right to sublicense, at the time you distribute the covered work or in the future, that would be infringed or violated by the covered work or any reasonably contemplated use of the covered work.
|
||||
>
|
||||
|
|
@ -83,45 +84,45 @@ The Apache license works similarly.
|
|||
|
||||
> Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, each Contributor hereby grants to You a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable (except as stated in this section) patent license to make, have made, use, offer to sell, sell, import, and otherwise transfer the Work, where such license applies only to those patent claims licensable by such Contributor that are necessarily infringed by their Contribution(s) alone or by combination of their Contribution(s) with the Work to which such Contribution(s) was submitted.
|
||||
|
||||
All this is to say that a good license should at *least* be clear about the rights under patent and trademark law, since software carries aspects of all forms of intellectual property.
|
||||
We might say, then, that a good license should at *least* make its terms clear around the rights under patent and trademark law, since software carries aspects of all forms of intellectual property.
|
||||
|
||||
As a parallel example, one of my concerns with using Creative Commons for **Seeking Refuge** is exactly my trademark problem: In theory, I would like a trademark on **The League of the Silver Bat**, as a franchise name, to protect against a hypothetical large media company from using the name and turning around to sue me when they find out that I exist. However, doing that would require that I sue the people I encourage to create derived works if they use the name prominently, to prove that the trademark is mine, which defeats the purpose of sharing.
|
||||
As a parallel example, one of my concerns with using Creative Commons for **Seeking Refuge** precisely hits my trademark problem: In theory, I would like a trademark on **The League of the Silver Bat**, as a franchise name, to protect against a hypothetical large media company from using the name and turning around to sue me when they find out that I exist. However, doing that would require that I sue the people who I encourage to create derived works if they use the name prominently, to prove that I own and care about the trademark, which defeats the purpose of sharing.
|
||||
|
||||
Absent an "open trademark" license (I see a [draft of one](https://fabcommons.org/post/81178200555/open-trademark-license-otl) in Japanese, but I haven't seen any in actual use), I would minimally want my copyright license to include a trademark grant in the context of the derivative work, possibly requiring some variation on the trademark to distinguish the derivatives from the original; likewise, nobody accepting the terms of the license should be able to sue me over those trademarks. There are no patents in this example, but the situation seems analogous.
|
||||
Absent an "open trademark" license (I see a [draft of one](https://fabcommons.org/post/81178200555/open-trademark-license-otl) in Japanese, but I haven't seen any in actual use), I would minimally want my copyright license to include a trademark grant in the context of the derivative work, possibly requiring some variation on the trademark to distinguish the derivatives from the original; likewise, nobody accepting the terms of the license should have the ability to sue me over those trademarks. No patents exist in this example, but the situation seems analogous.
|
||||
|
||||
## Compatibility
|
||||
|
||||
One of the things I like least about Creative Commons is their continual treatment of non-commercial licenses as first-class citizens of their system, since it creates two bodies of mutually unintelligible works. This isn't "I want to use [**Pioneer One**](http://www.pioneerone.tv/) as part of a space opera franchise" (even though that would be an excellent idea for someone willing to work with the non-commercial license), but rather---as a brief example---they can't adapt content from [*Stardrifter*](https://archive.org/details/Stardrifter/) and *Stardrifter* can't adapt anything from **Pioneer One**, since each license requires perpetuating terms that contradict the other license.
|
||||
One of the things I like least about Creative Commons revolves around their continued treatment of non-commercial licenses as first-class citizens of their system, since it creates two bodies of mutually unintelligible works. I don't mean this in the sense of "I want to use [**Pioneer One**](http://www.pioneerone.tv/) as part of a space opera franchise"...even though that would make an excellent idea for someone willing to work with the non-commercial license, but rather---as a brief example---they can't adapt content from [*Stardrifter*](https://archive.org/details/Stardrifter/) and *Stardrifter* can't adapt anything from **Pioneer One**, since each license requires perpetuating terms that contradict the other license.
|
||||
|
||||
There is a similar problem in the relationship between Creative Commons licenses and the GPL. There is currently an agreement in place carving out exceptions for GPL-licensed software to use content licensed CC-BY-SA, but the inverse isn't true. Therefore, apart from [Fair Use](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use) considerations, it's not feasible to include source code from a GPL-licensed project in a Creative Commons-licensed story or (in some cases) even use GPL-licensed software in a Creative Commons-licensed video. I don't include screenshots of software in this blog (except for my own) for this reason.
|
||||
A similar problem arises in the relationship between Creative Commons licenses and the GPL. Currently, the various groups have an informal agreement in place carving out exceptions for GPL-licensed software to use content licensed CC-BY-SA, but the inverse doesn't work. Therefore, apart from [Fair Use](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use) considerations, most people don't find it feasible to include source code from a GPL-licensed project in a Creative Commons-licensed story or---in some cases, because the license refuses to acknowledge output---even use GPL-licensed software in a Creative Commons-licensed video. I don't include screenshots of software in this blog (except for my own) for this reason.
|
||||
|
||||
If you'd like a more concrete example of GPL/Creative Commons conflicts, consider that most of the books on [FLOSS Manuals](https://www.flossmanuals.net/) are licensed under the GPL in the interest of being able to integrate the documentation with the software, at some point. But because of this, it can't be integrated with other content under strong-copyleft licensing (I'll continue to use this blog as an example, though Wikipedia and related projects come to mind as stronger contenders) without revising the license to the GPL.
|
||||
If you'd like a more concrete example of GPL/Creative Commons conflicts, consider that the authors of most of the books on [FLOSS Manuals](https://www.flossmanuals.net/) have licensed them under the GPL, in the interest of having the ability to integrate the documentation with the software, at some point. But because of this, a person can't integrate the books with other content under strong-copyleft licensing---I'll continue to use this blog as an example, though Wikipedia and related projects come to mind as stronger contenders---without revising the license to the GPL.
|
||||
|
||||
So, a modern license needs to be aware of the needs of other licenses, so that incompatible terms can be supported on at least some limited basis. For example, if I was creating a movie (I'm not) where the characters use a lot of Free Software, it would work well enough if the software couldn't be modified for the purpose and marked as licensed separately. Likewise, I wouldn't mind if my license for **Seeking Refuge** included terms that allowed for people to use extended excerpts, regardless of their license, with tighter integration than that requiring tighter conformance to licensing terms. Better would be if its terms were flexible enough to integrate GPL and CC-BY-SA content and reciprocate instead of being a one-way (or no-way) transfer.
|
||||
Therefore, a modern license needs to have some awareness of the needs of other licenses, so that incompatible terms can coexist on at least some limited basis. For example, if I had some wild plan to create a film where the characters use a lot of Free Software, it might work well enough if the license forbade modifications to the displayed software and required that the film mark them as licensed separately. Likewise, I wouldn't mind if my license for **Seeking Refuge** included terms that allowed for people to use extended excerpts, regardless of their license, with tighter integration than that requiring tighter conformance to licensing terms. We could improve that situation, if its terms had enough flexibility to integrate GPL and CC-BY-SA content and reciprocate instead of only creating a one-way or no-way transfer.
|
||||
|
||||
## Contributor Rights
|
||||
|
||||
[Contributor License Agreements](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contributor_License_Agreement) are terms required for contributing to a project that cede all rights to the owners. Generally, these are used for companies that want to eventually change the license of software under the GPL, eventually taking later versions proprietary once the market has been proven. Sure, there are other theoretical arguments about why a company might impose a CLA on people giving them gifts, but in practice, it's hard to find an exception.
|
||||
[Contributor License Agreements](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contributor_License_Agreement) create terms required for contributing to a project that cede all rights to the owners. Generally, companies use these agreements when they might want to eventually change the license of software under the GPL, eventually taking later versions proprietary once the market for the product proves itself. Sure, we could make other theoretical arguments about why a company might impose a CLA on people giving them gifts, but in practice, finding an exception to the general rule won't happen often.
|
||||
|
||||
There's a related but lesser issue that, as the holder of the original copyright, up until people contribute to my projects, I am not bound by the terms of their licenses. I can (don't worry, I *won't*, but I could) write a series of blog posts---licensed as CC-BY-SA---that are just [SlackBackup](https://github.com/jcolag/SlackBackup) code, whereas you can't, because you have received the software under the terms of the GPL.
|
||||
We can see a related but lesser issue that, as the holder of the original copyright, up until people contribute to my projects, I don't need to abide by the terms of their licenses. I can (don't worry, I *won't*, but I could) write a series of blog posts---licensed as CC-BY-SA---that just reprint [SlackBackup](https://github.com/jcolag/SlackBackup) code or print snippets on hats, whereas you can't, because you have received the software under the terms of the GPL.
|
||||
|
||||
I'm not sure if the latter problem can ever be solved, assuming we didn't just abolish copyright entirely. However, a policy of "copyleft in, copyleft out," suggesting that code contributed under the terms of the license can't be re-released under other terms *might* handle both. Bear in mind that the latter problem is always going to have a weaker solution, just because the entire point of copyright is a limited-term monopoly on what you create. But, it's still a start and would scuttle any attempt to impose a CLA outright.
|
||||
I don't know if anyone can ever solve the latter problem, assuming that we didn't just abolish copyright entirely. However, a policy of "copyleft in, copyleft out," suggesting that code contributed under the terms of the license can't see a re-release under other terms *might* handle both issues. Bear in mind that the latter problem will always have a weaker solution, just copyright inherently just creates a limited-term monopoly on what you create. But, such a change still takes a baby step, and would scuttle any attempt to impose a CLA outright.
|
||||
|
||||
## Digital Rights Management
|
||||
|
||||
This is, unfortunately, a much more dicey issue than the others. [Digital Rights Management](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_rights_management) are "locks" on content, designed to ensure that access to the content is exclusive. DVDs, for example, are (trivially, these days) encrypted to make it more difficult to watch a movie on your PC where you might copy it. Most streaming services use [Encrypted Media Extensions](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encrypted_Media_Extensions), another form of DRM, to similarly make it difficult to consume the book/music/movie/whatever on any device at any time.
|
||||
Unfortunately, this create a much more dicey issue than the others. [Digital Rights Management](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_rights_management) provides "locks" on content, designed to ensure that access to the content remains exclusive. DVDs, for example, undergo---trivial, these days---encryption to make it more difficult to watch a movie on your PC where you might copy it. Most streaming services use [Encrypted Media Extensions](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encrypted_Media_Extensions), a specific form of DRM, to similarly make it difficult to consume the book/music/movie/whatever on any device at any time.
|
||||
|
||||
Because it takes research and development to implement these locks, prices go up. And, as you probably know, they don't really work and it's *really* easy to find just about any current property on some pirate distribution network, if that's the sort of thing that excites you.
|
||||
Because it takes research and development to implement these locks, prices go up. And, as you probably know, they don't really work, and one would find it *really* easy to get just about any current property on some pirate distribution network, if that sort of thing excites you. (Personally, I don't condone piracy, because it still gives these abusive companies more mind-share, even if they don't receive money.)
|
||||
|
||||
As has been said many times before in this context (I believe originally by Cory Doctorow, but can't find the quote), nobody wants to pay more for a product whose distinguishing feature is that it's harder to use.
|
||||
As many others have said many times before in this context---I believe originally by Cory Doctorow, but can't find the quote---that nobody wants to pay more for a product whose distinguishing feature is that someone made it harder to use.
|
||||
|
||||
So, I'm not at all sure what form I would like this to take, but at least the *option* of forbidding distribution of a work through restricted channels seems well in the spirit of this. Selling a work is fine. Expecting that sold work to be locked to a specific device or user, however, is fantasy, and (if nothing else) creators should have a say in what happens to the works created using their work.
|
||||
Because of that, I don't at all know what form I would like this to take, but at least the *option* of forbidding distribution of a work through restricted channels seems well in the spirit of this. Nobody really has a problem with selling a work. Expecting that sold work to lock itself to a specific device or user, however, represents a corporate fantasy, and---if nothing else---creators should have a say in what happens to the works created using their work.
|
||||
|
||||
## Simplicity
|
||||
|
||||
One of the biggest objections I've heard regarding the GPLv3 is that it clocks in at 5,644 words, long enough that few developers have read it (almost twice the length of this interminable post) and, therefore, most developers don't actually know what terms they're offering or agreeing to, except in the broadest sense. By contrast, the MIT License hits around 170 words and, while it's a weak license, there's a better chance that you've read that than the GPL.
|
||||
One of the biggest objections that I've heard regarding the GPLv3 comes from how it clocks in at 5,644 words, long enough that few developers have read it---almost twice the length of this interminable post---and, therefore, most developers don't actually know what terms that they offer or agree to, except in the broadest sense. By contrast, the MIT License hits around 170 words and, while the license has its weaknesses, we have a better chance that you've read that than the GPL.
|
||||
|
||||
While a lot of the difference obviously involves added features, a modern license should also be laid out in a way that encourages reading and comprehension, ideally also including a summary like the Creative Commons "deeds."
|
||||
While a lot of the difference obviously involves added features, a modern license should also structure itself in a way that encourages reading and comprehension, ideally also including a summary like the Creative Commons "deeds."
|
||||
|
||||
## Clear Licensing
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -129,27 +130,27 @@ It occurs to me that I don't think that I have ever seen a public licensing stat
|
|||
|
||||
> Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.
|
||||
|
||||
In other words, we're not allowed to create derivative works based on the GPL.
|
||||
In other words, nobody but the Free Software Foundation can legally create derivative works based on the GPL.
|
||||
|
||||
By contrast, the Creative Commons licenses, such as [CC-BY-SA](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/legalcode), have a section at the end including:
|
||||
|
||||
> The text of the Creative Commons public licenses is dedicated to the public domain under the CC0 Public Domain Dedication.
|
||||
|
||||
I'm not saying that either is better or that this is the most critical thing in the world, but I'm actually the tiniest bit uncomfortable using the GPL, now, because I'm distributing a copy with my software without an explicit, formal public license. The way I read the disclaimer, it would be forbidden to make an audio recording of the license, since that's not a copy of the *document*, but rather an interpretation.
|
||||
I can't really say that either makes more sense or that this issue represents the most critical problem in the world, but I actually feel the tiniest bit of discomfort using the GPL, now, because I distribute a copy of usually the AGPL with my software, in repositories that carry licenses saying that you have permission to change anything that you like. The way I read the disclaimer, it would also forbid the possibility of making an audio recording of the license, since that doesn't copy of the *document*, but rather creates an interpretation.
|
||||
|
||||
Obviously, you shouldn't name your derivative license after the original (see the foregoing about trademarks), but the idea that licenses don't have licenses is...odd. It won't change how I work, but it's something I would like to see resolved.
|
||||
Of course, you shouldn't name your derivative license after the original (see the foregoing about trademarks), but the idea that licenses don't have licenses seems...odd. It won't change how I work, but it serves as something that I would like to see resolved.
|
||||
|
||||
## Rant Over
|
||||
|
||||
So, keeping in mind that nobody appears to be working on a project for a next-generation copyleft license and that I'm just some guy who happens to use copyleft licenses, that's a decent outline of what I would like to see if those conditions weren't true: Written like a contract, not written for a specific kind of product, strong reciprocation requirements as compensation for work, clear attribution guidelines, patent- and trademark-aware, not adversarial towards similar licenses, adversarial towards CLAs and DRM, easy to understand, and available (ideally) under its own terms. I think that would resolve a lot of current problems and set the community up for better collaboration in the future.
|
||||
Keeping in mind that nobody appears to have a project to create a next-generation copyleft license and that I have all the authority of some random guy who happens to use copyleft licenses, that should cover a decent outline of what I would like to see if those conditions didn't apply: Written like a contract, not written for a specific kind of product, strong reciprocation requirements as compensation for work, clear attribution guidelines, patent- and trademark-aware, not adversarial towards similar licenses, adversarial towards CLAs and DRM, easy to understand, and available (ideally) under its own terms. I think that would resolve a lot of current problems and set the community up for better collaboration in the future.
|
||||
|
||||
Would we see adoption of a license like this among big corporations? Probably not, and that may be a problem for some developers. But as I've mentioned previously, driving out the companies who use Free Culture as a source to be harvested without compensation is a benefit to me, not a drawback.
|
||||
Would we see adoption of a license like this among big corporations? Probably not, and such a license could cause problems for some developers. But as I've mentioned previously, driving out the companies who use Free Culture as a source to harvest without compensation feels like a benefit to me, not a drawback.
|
||||
|
||||
Does this solve the problems that the "ethical" licenses seek to solve? Not directly, no, but I also don't think there are many people and organizations who are willing to violate human rights and commit war crimes, but are going to balk at violating the terms of a license that may not be binding. It would be like imagining that we can stop murders by reducing the speed limits in dangerous neighborhoods to make it harder for the murderer to escape, because nobody ever speeds.
|
||||
Does this solve the problems that the "ethical" licenses seek to solve? Not directly, no, but I also don't think many people and organizations exist, who would have no problem violating human rights or committing war crimes, but would balk at violating the terms of a license that may not actually hold up in court. We might see an analogy in imagining that we can stop murders by reducing the speed limits in dangerous neighborhoods, to make it harder for the murderer to escape, because nobody *ever* speeds.
|
||||
|
||||
Don't get me wrong. I appreciate the sentiment behind these licenses. But I think the better approach is to make it unacceptable to violate human rights, rather than to release something under a "liberal" license and idly wag a finger at organizations that enables arbitrary arrest. And there are certainly ways to do that, but when the pitch for a new license includes a lengthy discussion about how nobody cares about licenses, the new license isn't much of a protest.
|
||||
Don't get me wrong. I appreciate the sentiment behind these licenses. But I think the better approach starts with making it unacceptable to violate human rights, rather than to release something under a "liberal" license and idly wag a finger at organizations that enables arbitrary arrest. And we certainly have ways to do that, but when the pitch for a new license includes a lengthy discussion about how nobody cares about licenses, the new license doesn't have much punch as a protest.
|
||||
|
||||
And if you've read all the way down this far, this is obviously a field that interests you, so...what features do *you* want in a license?
|
||||
And if you've read all the way down this far, I think that I can presume that this overlaps fields that interests you, so...what features do *you* want in a license?
|
||||
|
||||
#### <i class="fas fa-file-contract"></i>
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,124 @@
|
|||
---
|
||||
layout: post
|
||||
title: Tweets from 03/14 to 03/18
|
||||
date: 2022-03-18 16:26:11-0400
|
||||
categories: media
|
||||
tags: [twitter, week, socialmedia, linkdump]
|
||||
summary: Tweets for the Week of March 14th, 2022
|
||||
thumbnail: /blog/assets/CLM_14456_71r_detail.png
|
||||
proofed: true
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
As [discussed previously]({% post_url 2019-12-31-new-year %}), this is my weekly Twitter roundup. Note that tweets of articles generally include header images from the articles, which I don't include here unless their creators *happen* to have released them for use under a free license. Most have not. But I now add most of my commentary here, where I don't feel restricted by the message length.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
I also don't generally attach pictures to posts with quotations.
|
||||
|
||||
## 9:02 -- Mon 14 March 2022
|
||||
|
||||
[<i class="fab fa-twitter-square"></i>](https://twitter.com/jcolag/status/1503355766329151496) [170M Americans lost 824M IQ points from leaded gas exhaust](https://www.futurity.org/leaded-gas-exhaust-iq-points/) from Futurity
|
||||
|
||||
> As of 2015, more than 170 million Americans had clinically concerning levels of lead in their blood when they were children...
|
||||
|
||||
This study doesn't dig into this data, but it seems absolutely worth pointing out that this drain hasn't distributed itself evenly. Rather, overlaying the maps shows that modern [lead exposure tracks historical redlining](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/mar/09/redlining-air-pollution-us-cities).
|
||||
|
||||
For example, I probably have *some* diminished capacity, because I grew up a few blocks from a small highway, when the industry still added lead to gasoline. However, coming from a suburban house with nearby parks, my "share" of this burden decreases substantially, compared to my friends and colleagues who grew up in city apartment buildings, where car and truck fumes---and believe me, cars used to smell *awful* on the road---could only travel up or into windows.
|
||||
|
||||
## 12:02 -- Mon 14 March 2022
|
||||
|
||||
[<i class="fab fa-twitter-square"></i>](https://twitter.com/jcolag/status/1503401064673910789)
|
||||
|
||||
> As our fathers crushed oppression deal with those who breathe Secession.
|
||||
|
||||
{% cite Fanny Crosby %}
|
||||
|
||||
## 9:04 -- Tue 15 March 2022
|
||||
|
||||
[<i class="fab fa-twitter-square"></i>](https://twitter.com/jcolag/status/1503718657452617736) [Congress Passes USPS Reform Bill That Will Actually Fix Things](https://www.vice.com/en/article/4aw5pn/congress-passes-usps-reform-bill-that-will-actually-fix-things) from VICE Motherboard
|
||||
|
||||
> ...partially reverses one other controversial aspect of the 2006 law that banned the post office from providing non-postal services.
|
||||
|
||||
This progress thrills me. It doesn't bring us *quite* to the point where we might see the Postal Service becoming the hub of the community---with Internet service, banking, and so forth---but it puts the USPS in a position where it can go back to growing instead of constantly cutting back...once we dump Louis DeJoy.
|
||||
|
||||
## 12:05 -- Tue 15 March 2022
|
||||
|
||||
[<i class="fab fa-twitter-square"></i>](https://twitter.com/jcolag/status/1503764207434620935)
|
||||
|
||||
> Authority without wisdom is like a heavy axe without an edge, fitter to bruise than polish.
|
||||
|
||||
{% cite Anne Bradstreet %}
|
||||
|
||||
## 9:03 -- Wed 16 March 2022
|
||||
|
||||
[<i class="fab fa-twitter-square"></i>](https://twitter.com/jcolag/status/1504080794016366597) [It’s Not Just Inflation — It’s Price Gouging](https://otherwords.org/its-not-just-inflation-its-price-gouging/) from OtherWords
|
||||
|
||||
> ...the conflict in Ukraine is providing yet another opportunity for oil and gas companies to pad their bottom lines.
|
||||
|
||||
It amazes me how few media outlets---even independent media claiming to oppose corporate interests---bother with this story. Companies openly boasting about lying about inflation *should* spend its time as a top story, but we instead get talk about inflation as if it happens accidentally.
|
||||
|
||||
## 12:04 -- Wed 16 March 2022
|
||||
|
||||
[<i class="fab fa-twitter-square"></i>](https://twitter.com/jcolag/status/1504126343793070087)
|
||||
|
||||
> Each of the Arts whose office is to refine, purify, adorn, embellish and grace life is under the patronage of a Muse, no god being found worthy to preside over them.
|
||||
|
||||
{% cite Eliza Farnham %}
|
||||
|
||||
## 9:01 -- Thu 17 March 2022
|
||||
|
||||
[<i class="fab fa-twitter-square"></i>](https://twitter.com/jcolag/status/1504442678678732803) [Reliable internet unavailable for 90 pct of poorest](https://www.scidev.net/global/news/reliable-internet-unavailable-for-90-pct-of-poorest/) from SciDev.Net
|
||||
|
||||
> Most of these are found in East Asia, South Asia, the Pacific Islands, the Caribbean and Africa...
|
||||
|
||||
I feel like the past fifteen years has packed itself so tightly with plans to roll out Internet service to the planet's remaining population---people constantly praised major technology companies for their magical drones, balloons, satellites, towers, and other gadgets---that it should embarrass them all that nothing has changed. Well, OK, technically, one thing has changed: People no longer propose these plans.
|
||||
|
||||
## 12:01 -- Thu 17 March 2022
|
||||
|
||||
[<i class="fab fa-twitter-square"></i>](https://twitter.com/jcolag/status/1504487976788660224)
|
||||
|
||||
> My politics would be, must be, have to be, completely separate from my judgment.
|
||||
|
||||
{% cite Elena Kagan %}
|
||||
|
||||
## 9:05 -- Fri 18 March 2022
|
||||
|
||||
[<i class="fab fa-twitter-square"></i>](https://twitter.com/jcolag/status/1504806073336745985) [Bias in Automated Speaker Recognition](https://montrealethics.ai/bias-in-automated-speaker-recognition/) from Montreal AI Ethics Institute
|
||||
|
||||
> They found both models to perform better for males.
|
||||
|
||||
At some point, do we admit that we need to *require* teams working in machine learning to diversify their data, or do we continue to stubbornly wonder why these models only work well for white, middle-class men...?
|
||||
|
||||
## 12:03 -- Fri 18 March 2022
|
||||
|
||||
[<i class="fab fa-twitter-square"></i>](https://twitter.com/jcolag/status/1504850868046336007)
|
||||
|
||||
> ...Had I been bred to the profession of the law, I might have been a useful member of society, and instead of myself and my property being taken care of, I might have been a protector of the helpless, a pleader for the poor and unfortunate.
|
||||
|
||||
{% cite Sarah Grimké %}
|
||||
|
||||
## Bonus
|
||||
|
||||
Because it accidentally became a tradition early on in the life of the blog, I drop any additional articles that didn't fit into the one-article-per-day week, but too weird or important to not mention, here.
|
||||
|
||||
<i class="fas fa-square"></i> [Barbie doll that honors Ida B. Wells faces an uphill battle against anti-Blackness](https://theconversation.com/barbie-doll-that-honors-ida-b-wells-faces-an-uphill-battle-against-anti-blackness-174953) from The Conversation
|
||||
|
||||
> Representation alone does not equal racial justice or stop messages of anti-Blackness from existing.
|
||||
|
||||
I need to point out that, while you could arguably describe me as a fan of [Wells](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ida_B._Wells), she especially seems a worrying choice for Mattel, a company...not exactly known for thinking through their social messaging. I mean, Wells wrote spectacularly scathing work, and we should treat her as an important historical figure. However, the topic that most people know her writing about revolves around lynching. Will Mattel give kids reading material along these lines? I doubt that, and I would doubt their wisdom if they did. Without discussing lynching, however, Wells doesn't have nearly the same impact.
|
||||
|
||||
> In slave times the Negro was kept subservient and submissive by the frequency and severity of the scourging, but, with freedom, a new system of intimidation came into vogue; the Negro was not only whipped and scourged; he was killed.
|
||||
|
||||
More likely, they'll try to avoid the issue, which effectively erases her legacy.
|
||||
|
||||
<i class="fas fa-square"></i> [Londongrad must fall – or the US could raze it to the ground](https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/londongrad-must-fall-or-the-us-could-raze-it-to-the-ground/) from OpenDemocracy
|
||||
|
||||
> While the US stands as a money-laundering haven of its own, the White House has taken significant moves in the past year to finally clean up the American mess --- not least elevating corruption to a core national security threat and releasing a seminal counter-kleptocracy strategy document late last year that specifically called out a number of American industries and loopholes.
|
||||
|
||||
I find it remarkable that this I haven't heard about the Biden administration treating corruption as a security threat, before this article. Like I said about the fake-inflation story, I would otherwise think that the media should treat this as a much bigger deal...if only because their bosses need to know about the danger to their fortunes.
|
||||
|
||||
If you want a third story that should see far more air-time: [Brittney Griner](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brittney_Griner). An Olympic gold medalist gets taken to a Russian jail for shaky drug accusations to score political points in the Ukrainian invasion, and the television news doesn't give it an animated logo to air an updated segment nightly?
|
||||
|
||||
* * *
|
||||
|
||||
**Credits**: Header image is [Circular diagrams showing the division of the day and of the week](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:CLM_14456_71r_detail.jpg) from a manuscript drafted during the Carolingian Dynasty.
|
||||
Loading…
Reference in New Issue