The Artist’s Hippocratic Oath (AHO):
“I will not accept the enslavement of my fellow man, nor any imposition upon his liberty, as reward for the publication of my art”
In a comment upon Tim Cowlishaw’s excellent article Ethics, employment and free software it appears to have been inferred by Terry Hancock here (expanded in his later article) that if an employee takes the Artist’s Hippocratic Oath they will be unemployable by any employer who enjoys the use of copyright or patents.
This is not actually the case.
The AHO only means that the artist will not accept the suspension of the public’s liberty as reward for their publication of their work, it doesn’t mean they won’t accept monetary reward for their private labour (work for hire) – from someone who is willing to accept the suspension of the public’s liberty in exchange for publication.
So as an affiant you do not have to resign simply because your employer is unethically accepting the reward of the suspension of the public’s liberty and exploiting it. Stay there and persuade them to be more ethical, or leave for a more ethical employer.
All the AHO means is that if you have produced a work that you are the copyright holder of (solely or in part), or on the understanding that you will enjoy entitlement to copyright of this work, then you will either keep the work private, nullify its copyright, or deliver it to someone who will (keep it private or nullify its copyright). However, this does preclude selling the work (including the transfer of copyright) to a publisher who is not bound to nullify the copyright.
So, in a way, the typical employment contract absolves you of ethical responsibility since it withholds the entitlement of that responsibility from you, e.g. “As a condition of employment with us, you will not enjoy any title, copyright privileges, patents, or royalties to the works you are involved in producing – though you may receive credit (non-compulsory)”.
So, I hope you’ll soon join me as an affiant to the Artist’s Hippocratic Oath, whether employed or not.
I don’t think I am ready to take such an oath or make such an affirmation yet.
My goal is for my published works to end up in copyleft status and, since I have become aware of the possibilities of copyleft several years back, most of my stuff has gone right to copyleft on release.
That said, I am still thinking about and experimenting with ‘business models’ and one of the things I may eventually get around to trying seriously is timed release to copyleft and ‘payment’ release to copyleft.
Taking such an oath would prevent the use of these models would it not?
Plus, how would this oath fit in with the dual license models?
Could the oath/affirmation be modified to permit these possibilities while remaing true to its intent?
all the best,
drew
http://www.ourmedia.org/user/17145
(+1)/10 to send email.
Comment #000045 at
2006-11-25 12:59
by
Yes. The AHO would prevent an initial NC release. It would also prevent dual licensing (assuming that the only point of a non-copyleft license was to enable another party to publish a proprietary non-copyleft derivative).
AHO is “Irrespective of whether I mean well, I will not use copyright except in a nullification license”.
However, AHO still permits SaaS or ASP. So in some cases you could still demonstrate your work via a web page.
I intend to flesh out the AHO with clauses about respect for life, privacy and truth.
Comment #000049 at
2006-11-25 15:21
by
Crosbie Fitch
The Artist’s Hippocratic Oath (AHO):
“I will not accept the enslavement of my fellow man, nor any imposition upon his liberty, as reward for the publication of my art”
In a comment upon Tim Cowlishaw’s excellent article Ethics, employment and free software it appears to have been inferred by Terry Hancock here (expanded in his later article) that if an employee takes the Artist’s Hippocratic Oath they will be unemployable by any employer who enjoys the use of copyright or patents.
This is not actually the case.
The AHO only means that the artist will not accept the suspension of the public’s liberty as reward for their publication of their work, it doesn’t mean they won’t accept monetary reward for their private labour (work for hire) – from someone who is willing to accept the suspension of the public’s liberty in exchange for publication.
So as an affiant you do not have to resign simply because your employer is unethically accepting the reward of the suspension of the public’s liberty and exploiting it. Stay there and persuade them to be more ethical, or leave for a more ethical employer.
All the AHO means is that if you have produced a work that you are the copyright holder of (solely or in part), or on the understanding that you will enjoy entitlement to copyright of this work, then you will either keep the work private, nullify its copyright, or deliver it to someone who will (keep it private or nullify its copyright). However, this does preclude selling the work (including the transfer of copyright) to a publisher who is not bound to nullify the copyright.
So, in a way, the typical employment contract absolves you of ethical responsibility since it withholds the entitlement of that responsibility from you, e.g. “As a condition of employment with us, you will not enjoy any title, copyright privileges, patents, or royalties to the works you are involved in producing – though you may receive credit (non-compulsory)”.
So, I hope you’ll soon join me as an affiant to the Artist’s Hippocratic Oath, whether employed or not.