Billy Crook wrote:
You can't have complete control of your work unless it is completely your own property.
For a work to be completely your own property, you must have uniquely created 100% of that work. This is usually not the case.
Not quite. A work can still be completely your own property, if and only if the "work" is the *unique* way in which you combine or modify other component works. Even the original author of the work cannot use your *unique* reworking of their original without violating your rights.
This creates a sort of gridlock, because if the original author and the owner of the derivative work cannot come to a compromise of their rights, then *neither* can propagate the derivative work.
For a visual illustration, see the attached GIF.
If the creator of a work makes no exceptions to the default rights granted by copyright law, then no one can redistribute a derivative work (fair use aside).
If the creator of a work puts the work in the public domain, then anyone can redistribute the work or a derivative work, regardless of the terms of redistribution or the later wishes of the original creator.
I think the original point of this thread was to discuss the fact that there are no simple "in between" options for either the original creator or the creator of a derivative work. The only means available at present is to reserve all of the rights permissible by copyright, and then license out the permissions you desire by way of complex IP contracts (read: GPL).
While I find the idea of an "in between" option, without contracts/licenses, to be intriguing, I don't think it would work in practice. We already have enough clashes between different copyright and public domain laws in different countries. To add another classification to the mix, and expect it to be in anyway universal, would be asking for trouble. On top of that, as we can see with the diversity of licenses available, it would be hard to come to a consensus.
With the large number of established licenses available, it is not too difficult to release your work to the public while prohibiting commercial redistribution. For example, the CreativeCommons provides a license for such uses.
Lastly, one fault of the argument presented in the original message is the ambiguity of the term "profit". The whole concept of open source involves many people contributing, and therefore everyone profiting. A profit is simply a gain of value, it doesn't necessarily have to be monetary.
~Bradley
