Only the ferocious oppression of the black community by the police, and the ever-present threat of the KKK (which was admittedly, already fading as a social force in the South by the 1950s) kept a lid on the situation. We felt only the promise of horrible reprisals (like lynchings) were the only thing that kept the blacks peaceful in their ghettoes.

We were, of course, mistaken. When Civil rights came along, it was not because of violence, or revolution, and there was remarkably little violent backlash by the whites (in Florida, at any rate). I can see now the one individual most responsible for the peaceful transition of the Civil Rights struggle in America was MLK.

He was a great man, not just for his eloquence and activism, but for his successful implementation of a policy of non-violence and peaceful protest. Even after his assassination, the violence and rioting that followed throughout the country (Tampa had its own riot) was much less than we expected. I was expecting a bloodbath, widespread martial law, troops and tanks in the streets, camps for the prisoners, bloody reprisals, perhaps tens or hundreds of thousands dead. The riots were bad, but could have been much worse. I know if I had been black I would have been ready for all-out war. I would have wanted it. I knew it back then, too.

As bad as it was, it never came to that. And MLK’s philosophy was what made the difference. He was a great man, and the resistance to marking his life with a national holiday was petty and churlish.

He should be the fifth face on Mt Rushmore.

I’d be cool with the National Archives buying selected copyrights from the King family in order to liberate the works. What’s a few $million amortized over all of humanity?

I frequently run into the misunderstanding that “open source” is the same as public domain, and the structure of the Creative Commons licenses helps clear that up, because it’s so much simpler than the GNU and MIT licenses that encumber most software. The core fact is this: You have to retain ownership over something in order to place terms on its use. CC and open source require you to retain the copyright, otherwise any terms you try to enforce are just vapor. As long as you have the copyright, you’re then free to say “now knock yourselves out, as long as you credit me”.

I like that there’s a menu of CC license terms. I’d compose one for the Zone, and works of more historical significance like King’s speeches, that allows reproduction with credit, but prohibits modification. That’s how finely CC dices it, plus there’s an escape clause to add additional terms (I used that one to write a license for a MOOC a year ago).

A Creative Commons (CC) license is one of several public copyright licenses that enable the free distribution of an otherwise copyrighted work. A CC license is used when an author wants to give people the right to share, use, and build upon a work that they have created.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_Commons_license

This would leave anybody the right to view it, use it, etc as long as its attributed. The King’s still get attribution, but won’t profit from it, which seems to be the crux of the reason they don’t do it. Sad really.

What gives it value is the widespread attribution. To then attempt to limit it’s distribution is not only counter to King’s wishes while he was alive but to sandbag those who in good faith have quoted it. I think the use of it has passed into the public domain by usage.

From L. A. Times.

2) Inheritance, the desire to profit exclusively from the achievements of your ancestors.

3) To use the coercive power of the state to guarantee and enforce 1) and 2).