In today’s digital age, licensing isn’t merely a legal formality; it functions as a declaration of underlying values and goals. Individuals pursue various objects, including fame, profit, land, or freedom. At its core, the free software movement seeks to spread freedom and collaboration, ultimately contributing to a more equitable and cooperative society. When it comes to open knowledge and software documentation, licenses define how content can be used, modified, and shared. To determine whether traditional copyright remains relevant in the modern World Wide Web, it is helpful to examine its origins: copyright emerged alongside the printing press—a technology that facilitated mass production. It fits that era well because it only restricted large-scale printers, leaving everyday readers free to duplicate books with pen and ink, and few were ever sued for doing so (Stallman, 2002). Digital technology, by contrast, allows anyone with a computer to replicate and distribute perfect copies around the globe in seconds. This ease of reproduction challenges the very idea of information “ownership,” suggesting that control over digital works may do more to stifle creativity and sharing than to protect authors.
At first glance, “copyright” and “copyleft” might seem like opposites, but they both arise from the same concern: control over creative works. Traditional copyright reserves all rights to the author, often restricting downstream uses. In contrast, copyleft licenses—such as the General Public License (GPL) for software or the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike (CC BY-SA) license for content—grant everyone the freedom to use, modify, and redistribute so long as any derivative works remain under the same terms. This “share-alike” clause ensures that the four essential freedoms (to run, study, modify, and share) propagate through every contribution. Society needs to encourage the spirit of voluntary cooperation in its citizens. When software owners claim that helping our neighbors is “piracy,” they pollute our society’s civic spirit. (Stallman, 2002). That is precisely why I seek out copyleft repositories, as their licenses not only permit but legally require collaboration, ensuring that every contribution both protects user freedoms and strengthens the shared commons.
Documentation is an essential part of major software packages; when an important free software package does not come with a free manual, there is a major gap. MDN Web Docs operates under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license. This means that every article, code sample, and guide is not only free to read but also free to adapt, provided that credit is given and new works are licensed under the same terms. As I explored MDN’s community guidelines, it became clear that translation projects are fundamental to MDN’s mission of global accessibility. By translating MDN into Russian, I am removing linguistic barriers for developers who rely on up-to-date, accurate web development guidance while also inviting future volunteers to improve, correct, or expand the translation—knowing that the share-alike requirement protects their contributions from enclosure. This ethical and practical clarity shaped my decision: translating MDN under CC BY-SA is not merely a legal choice but an affirmation of collective progress, ensuring that every enhancement remains free for the entire community
References:
Stallman, R., 2002. Free software, free society: Selected essays of Richard M. Stallman. Lulu. com.
