Bitcoin Forum

http://wiki.kibabase.com/Why_I_Unlicense

It's an article said why I am unlicensing my content in the first place. It's for my "Kibabase" brand.

I was hoping someone could do a critique of it to make it much more persuasive.

unlicense is for children, real men WTFPL (http://sam.zoy.org/wtfpl/) :D

:D

kibabase.com is not loading on my computer.  :(

It's downtime fun from my host:

works now.  Thanks for taking care of that, and I'm proud of you for making such a public declaration.

While praise is nice, I am more interested in criticism so that I can improve my writing.

You mean grammar?

"That mean all the future works that ever put out by me..." => "That means that all future works that will ever be put out by me..."

"I don't mean just consume, but to modify and commercialize as well." => "I don't mean just to consume, but to modify and to commercialize as well." OR "I don't mean just consume, but to modify and commercialize as well."

"Rather, I believed it make rational sense(confers economic benefit) for me to do so." => "Rather, I believed it makes rational sense (confers economic benefit) for me to do so."  (previous tense was not past)

...

You don't seem to have a complete understanding of English grammar, and I find your writing jarring for that reason.

First two paragraphs:


Incorrect verb tense:
That means all


Missing tense words:
that will ever be put out by me


"Consume" is a verb, but you used it as a noun. I changed the other verbs as well because the items in a list should use the same form.

I don't mean just consumption, but modification and commercialization as well.


Tense disagreement:
Rather, I believed it made rational sense

Grammar is fundamental, but that's not all what I have in mind. The essay's thesis is why you should unlicense using my announcement as a hook-in.

Thanks anyway, I seem to have found out what I should really focus on in the essay.

I will be doing the same with my future writing, spare a complete unlicensing. You may believe plagiarism is self-policing; however, I rather not take that risk. It seems only sensible to me to be credited to labor I have created. It is an extension of me and I want assured protection.

Man should be able to shape his matter and energy into any form he chooses --regardless if it be identical to mine-- but he may not present ideas and creativity generated by another individual as his own. It is fraud and to me a form of theft. I believe I should have legal protections against such theft as I have protection to the right to my own life.

Let me continue to say that all men should have the right to be credited to the ideas they generated. The idea will always require their labor alone; however, the labor to produce it into tangible energy or matter should exclusively belong to the producers of said matter and energy.

Experiment!

Let reality be your best guide.

That's an ambitious principle, and I presume you will be true to it in your own work.

How will you be crediting all those phrases that were first generated by someone else? For starters, if you use any of the following phrases you'll need to credit William Shakespeare for originally generating them:

I am only arguing for reasonable protection from intentional fraud. To argue protection for these phrases is like arguing for the protection of the theft of personal time in increments of minutes or seconds.

I fixed some grammar faults. Thanks for whatever traffic you guys gave me.

Not all countries recognise such a thing as "Public Domain", which is why it might be better to say more explicitly, "Public Domain, or the equivalent legal concept", or, indeed, just say explicitly, "do what the fuck you want!".

Personally, I wouldn't be doing what you are doing, but I love that you are up for it. I think that in this capitalist world, laying legal claim on my work (even if I say, go, do what you want, just credit me), is important. And, actually, often I also copyleft my stuff, so that it remains in the free culture. That's important too I think.

Why don't YOU experiment?

Three reasons.

1) I like that people credit me, and well, I want to be able to be able threaten corporations with their own laws if they don't.
2) I like copyleft (and use it for some of my stuff, particularly larger programs - I often also make use of copyleft work, which requires that the work I build upon it also be copyleft), and so, same reason as above.

Well, actually that's only two reasons. But seriously, I'm a big supporter of Free Culture, and I think that both copyleft, and attribution (requiring the original location of the work (in the form of a web address in most cases)), can contribute to this more than so called "unlicensed" work.

In your case, if you say, "do whatever you want with any of my stuff", there is nothing to prevent corporations form locking up your work, and preventing others from using it (well, unless they get it from the original source). Of course, the same applies for things I do, but at least I have some legal threats if I catch 'em doing it.

On another note, related to your post. Why not link to http://unlicense.org/ ? That would make it clearer that you are part of a broader movement. (That's something that I came across today, while looking for bitcoin related PHP stuff.)

Isn't it wrong to use coercion against people who do not share their own property?

The thing is, I don't give a fuck about corporations or rich bastards. And so am happy to coerce them into following their own legal system.

Also, the fact is that corporations and rich bastards coerce me all the time. They get to use the state to do it, so when it comes to them, I'm not going to back down.

To defeat copyright, one must create a more interesting stream of materials for people to consume.

+1 +1 +1 +1 +1  :D :D :D :D :D