[Battlemesh] Short update on COSLi

[yanosz]

Hello,

thanks for your feedback - addressing your ideas:

Am 01.09.18 um 14:24 schrieb guifipedro:
> Hi Yanosz and all,
> 
> I know very little about the topic, hope you find positive to
> contribute to this discussion.
> 
> # Discourse way
> 
> I'm worried about the implications of this license for the people that
> need to have DIY defense, examples: amazonia tribes, autonomous
> regions [1], etc.
> 
> As is difficult for me to accept the Peer Production License [2], and
> similar stuff [3].
> 
> ... Or any license that put restrictions to freedom. Because I think
> that the restrictions of freedom must be
> regulated/consensuated/governed in an autonomous communities with a
> huge support from the locals. And not by this kind of universal law.
> And not because I don't trust universal stuff (like maths, physics,
> human rights), but because sometimes is very difficult to formulate
> it... And you don't know what's going to happen in 50 years.
> 
> # Three bullet points way:
> 
> - "They" are taking benefit of what we do, but if we license is free
> as in freedom, we can enjoy what they did (example: Linux kernel -
> GPL).
> - Someone find that you are violating the license (with this kind of
> retoric that you are terrorist)
> - At some point, the need to use "evil methods" (considered as this
> today, at least, I consider it) to survive.
> 
> # In one sentence
> 
> The license is not the place to fight this stuff. GPL is nice to
> change property from private to common. And commons works better/is
> richer than private and public [4]

Some thougts:

- Almost every license - i.e. except CC0 - puts restrictions into place.
IMHO its more important to think about actual consequences.

Making a twist: by demanding, that software is universally free, you're
restricting the freedom of an artist to restrict the usage of her (or
his) work. It's tricky, isn't it?

- For me, the German copyright law - COSLi legal basis - doesn't qualify
as an "universal law". By ìts design, it is not binding per se. It's up
to a society to decide whether a concept like intellectual property
actually exists, how to deal with it and how to enforce it. It is
binding in Germany, though.

- COSLi highlights the possibility for re-licensing and licensing in
dual-use situations. I neither expect that COSLi works in every "good"
situation (in whatever sense), nor do I see the necessity to allow usage
in "bad" situations without consent.

I agree, that it's almost impossible write a license addressing issues,
that will happen in about 50 years. But being able to adapt by
considering adaptions in the very beginning is an interesting way out.

This boils down to: Just ask, If you want to use parts of fieldtracks in
your application using whatever license.

- As stated in the FAQ, COSLi is written to be a binding clarification
addressing people I work with. I doubt that's enforceable - and thus
applicable - in almost any other context.

Greetz, yanosz