- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
Why is free software important to you? Submit your response to the FSF video campaign.
|
|
|
Comments (32)
12 earlier comments in the full thread.
Quoting:To me it means a movement I generally do not support.
You should vlog and submit it.
LOL dino, I think so. RMS/FSF have been far-sighted on a lot of issues, so I keep looking for the "Aha!" explanation that clears it all up and makes sense. But it seems they want to override the wishes (and they don't even know what those are going to be) of the future copyright holder of MySQL.
Which brings up another copyright issue I think about-- in the Linux kernel the copyrights belong to whoever writes the code. On some projects, like Asterisk, all contributors must transfer their copyrights to Digium. Both solve different problems, and also create different types of messes.
Which brings up another copyright issue I think about-- in the Linux kernel the copyrights belong to whoever writes the code. On some projects, like Asterisk, all contributors must transfer their copyrights to Digium. Both solve different problems, and also create different types of messes.
@tc: You are correct that at present the FSF denies me nothing. However, their ideology, as advocated by some of their supporters, is to do all they can to eliminate proprietary software. That's a goal I do not support and it would deny me something if they ever succeed. I think it is unlikely that they ever will. So... it isn't that they deny me anything but rather that they would like to restrict my rights.
@dino: I do understand the value of the freedom to modify and the freedom to redistribute. I think those are wonderful options that should be made available at the discretion of the owner of the code, not made mandatory. I think you should also have the freedom to insist on "Free" software for your use all you want.
I've been trying to crystallize what rubs me the wrong way about FSF. I think it's the evangelical nature of the movement. I think it's trying to sell free software as ethical and non-free software as unethical... or free software as somehow virtuous and proprietary software as somehow not. I come from a religious tradition where proselytizing is considered offensive. By making this an ethical issue FSF makes "free software" a religious issue and I have no use for preachers of any kind.
@dino: I do understand the value of the freedom to modify and the freedom to redistribute. I think those are wonderful options that should be made available at the discretion of the owner of the code, not made mandatory. I think you should also have the freedom to insist on "Free" software for your use all you want.
I've been trying to crystallize what rubs me the wrong way about FSF. I think it's the evangelical nature of the movement. I think it's trying to sell free software as ethical and non-free software as unethical... or free software as somehow virtuous and proprietary software as somehow not. I come from a religious tradition where proselytizing is considered offensive. By making this an ethical issue FSF makes "free software" a religious issue and I have no use for preachers of any kind.
caitlyn -
The FSF and free software are not the same thing. RMS and the FSF have made some wonderful contributions, but they remain one part of a larger free software world.
The FSF and free software are not the same thing. RMS and the FSF have made some wonderful contributions, but they remain one part of a larger free software world.
> I think those are wonderful options that should be made available at the discretion of the owner of the code, not made mandatory.
You say that as if you think Dino disagrees with you. Take my word for it, he doesn't.
You say that as if you think Dino disagrees with you. Take my word for it, he doesn't.
Quoting:So... it isn't that they deny me anything but rather that they would like to restrict my rights.
So your reasons for not supporting Free Software is based on conjecture.
Quoting:. I come from a religious tradition where proselytizing is considered offensive. By making this an ethical issue FSF makes "free software" a religious issue and I have no use for preachers of any kind.
I'm an Atheist, so you can probably guess my opinion of Religion and it's associated bent to proselytizing. But so far your opposition to Free Software seems, to me, to be based on conjecture, in other words it seems more like a statement of Faith than anything based on Fact.
@tracyanne: No, it's not based on conjecture. It is based entirely on the statements by RMS and other Free Software advocates.
Please, don't try to insult me. That generally isn't a good way to win arguments.
Please, don't try to insult me. That generally isn't a good way to win arguments.
caitlyn, I wasn't trying to win anything.
Nor did I set out to insult you. If you take insult, that really is your problem, and I couldn't care less.
All I did was point out that your opposition to the FSF appears to be based on conjecture. You have no examples of the FSF denying yourself, myself or anyone else Freedoms, all you have is conjecture based on inflammatory statements made by some supporters of FSF.
Nor did I set out to insult you. If you take insult, that really is your problem, and I couldn't care less.
All I did was point out that your opposition to the FSF appears to be based on conjecture. You have no examples of the FSF denying yourself, myself or anyone else Freedoms, all you have is conjecture based on inflammatory statements made by some supporters of FSF.
Actually, there is a huge difference between conjecture and a stated ideology. Oh, and the idea that proprietary software is unethical comes from RMS himself, not just "some supporters". The FSF ideology is antithetical to freedom in licensing, freedom to be open or closed.
As much as it pains me to agree with Caitlyn on anything today, that RMS has stated closed software "should" be prohibited is my remembering as well. He justifies the prohibition on it being unethical, but it's still his opinion about what other people aught to be allowed to do.
Luckily, RMS and the FSF has no legislative power, so they have no ability to coerce others to their opinions.
Voluntary interaction works again. RMS's consistant ethical stand is refreshing and very appreciated, after all there is no one with which I completely agree on everything.
Luckily, RMS and the FSF has no legislative power, so they have no ability to coerce others to their opinions.
Voluntary interaction works again. RMS's consistant ethical stand is refreshing and very appreciated, after all there is no one with which I completely agree on everything.
I'm in neither camp completely, yet at the same time I think FOSS is as close as it gets to justice in the software world, but still far from it.
I have more problem with copyright law in general and the idea of "intellectual property". What I consider to be unethical is forcing people into agreements they did not make, regardless of whether the terms of said "agreement" correspond to Free Software or proprietary software. And that stems directly from a flawed belief into "intellectual property".
So it comes down to choosing a lesser evil. I support Free Software in so far as I oppose the idea of intellectual property, but I also support Open Source people when they say there is no ethical issue in choosing to provide software under different terms or without source code. I do think there is an ethical problem, but it's not within distribution terms so much as within copyright itself.
But I think I can support Free Software without being a fan of FSF. They're kinda like the mini version, even if with benevolent *intentions* of such institutions as the BSA. You guessed it, my problem is their tie up with copyright enforcement and desires to legislate in favor of FS. But I also think they go a little too far with their boycott campaigns by essentially stooping almost to the same level as Microsoft with FUD.
But this is all confusing because the terminology for both just utterly sucks. Let's just say I support "FOSS" (vague..) from a partly pragmatic and a partly ideological reasons, but not the ideology FSF peddles.
I have more problem with copyright law in general and the idea of "intellectual property". What I consider to be unethical is forcing people into agreements they did not make, regardless of whether the terms of said "agreement" correspond to Free Software or proprietary software. And that stems directly from a flawed belief into "intellectual property".
So it comes down to choosing a lesser evil. I support Free Software in so far as I oppose the idea of intellectual property, but I also support Open Source people when they say there is no ethical issue in choosing to provide software under different terms or without source code. I do think there is an ethical problem, but it's not within distribution terms so much as within copyright itself.
But I think I can support Free Software without being a fan of FSF. They're kinda like the mini version, even if with benevolent *intentions* of such institutions as the BSA. You guessed it, my problem is their tie up with copyright enforcement and desires to legislate in favor of FS. But I also think they go a little too far with their boycott campaigns by essentially stooping almost to the same level as Microsoft with FUD.
But this is all confusing because the terminology for both just utterly sucks. Let's just say I support "FOSS" (vague..) from a partly pragmatic and a partly ideological reasons, but not the ideology FSF peddles.
Quoting:But I think I can support Free Software without being a fan of FSF.
This is the one part of what Libervis wrote that I completely agree with. I *do* support and advocate for software that falls within the FSF definition of free. Just because I don't support the organization or the ideology doesn't mean I won't support excellent software released in a beneficial way. dino is correct on this point as well.
I also don't deny that RMS has written valuable code or that he has made some valuable contributions towards making software more open. I'm not opposed to the GPL per se, for example. There are other Open Source licenses which I find preferable, at least in certain cases. IIRC they are all compatible with the GPL in any case and FSF has no objections to them. Linus Torvalds has spoken about what he sees as advantages in the Affero GPL, for example.
I will point out that enforcement of the GPL (any version) is entirely dependent on existing copyright law. As we discussed in another thread I do believe in the concept of intellectual property, including both patents and copyrights, and I think the laws are necessary to protect the rights of creators of various works, whether it's music or books or software. What I generally oppose are what I consider to be abuses of the concepts or overreaching laws. For example, software patents which allow the patenting of a concept rather than actual code are objectionable in my view. Anyone who has done any serious amount of coding knows that there are entirely different ways one can achieve essentially the same result independently without stealing someone else's work.
Bob is entirely correct that the FSF has no ability to coerce and no authority at this time. However, the do seek to make their ideas law, effectively functioning as lobbyists. I would find a prohibition on proprietary software every bit as objectionable and overreaching as the software patents we have in the U.S. today.
(Oh, and Bob, I have no difficulty agreeing with you. It isn't painful in the least.)
Quoting:However, the do seek to make their ideas law, effectively functioning as lobbyists.
What? Link or it didn't happen. I know what RMS thinks of Free Software but I don't believe that he or the FSF are actively lobbying congress to outlaw proprietary software.
See, when you stop taking insult, and instead address what I say, one gets good comment.
The thing is the FSF "ideology" isn't about Freedom, it about Software Freedom... the freedom of the Software and ensuring that it is always Free, not the Freedom of the individual,
I tend to agree with the FSF position, that Proprietary Software is unethical. I see it, or at least the actions of it's developers, as unethical, because the primary thrust of Proprietary Software purveyors is to create scarcity, where there is none, for the sole purpose of lifting more money from my pocket.
The thing is the FSF "ideology" isn't about Freedom, it about Software Freedom... the freedom of the Software and ensuring that it is always Free, not the Freedom of the individual,
I tend to agree with the FSF position, that Proprietary Software is unethical. I see it, or at least the actions of it's developers, as unethical, because the primary thrust of Proprietary Software purveyors is to create scarcity, where there is none, for the sole purpose of lifting more money from my pocket.
There is a difference between a "unreasonable" and "unethical". I think too many people throw the "unethical" label around too liberally. In my opinion if there's consent and no fraud then it's ethical, no matter what the contract was, unless perhaps the contract says that the other party now owns you, which kinda makes it the last contract you'll ever agree to.
Software distribution terms which say "you're prohibited to share" is unreasonable. It's a valid contract, but it's a bad contract in that if you agree to such a thing you're probably selling yourself too short. The other party gets to charge over and over again for something they invested effort into only once. It's unethical only if it involves fraud, as in the other party telling you how it actually costs the same to produce each copy as it costed to produce the original (which would be obvious BS).
Copyright however makes these unreasonable contracts double-bad. In reality if two people have an agreement it's between those two people. Copyright overrides that and says that the contract between A and B suddenly MUST be the same between B and C. You don't even need to carefully craft a viral contract (similar to GPL). It applies either way. That stems directly from the belief in intellectual property, the idea that you can own an idea, which is physically *impossible* - you can't own arrangements any more than you can own the number 5. The result is people being forced to behave under terms they never agreed to.
For example, an EULA might say you can share only two copies of the program. If you agree to that well, you agreed to it, no matter it's stupid to agree to something like that, but it's still a valid contract. Now you give a copy to a friend and this is where copyright comes in. Without copyright, you could give it to a friend under any terms you like so long as the EULA doesn't say anything on that. In other words you can give a copy to a friend and tell him he can share to as many people as he wants. He didn't break the first contract with this second contract.
But copyright swoops in and says "no can do, regardless of the fact your contract doesn't state it, you must give to the other person under the same terms as your original contract". What?? It's like a third person which has nothing to do with it suddenly coming in and dictating what you can or can't do, regardless of what either of the parties involved say. Of course, the goal of copyright is to get contracts stuck. What the first person with the original vendor agreed to now suddenly everyone else who receives it downstream must agree to, even if that wasn't provisioned in the original terms.
That's why I think what's unethical is copyright and any reliance on it, not the terms themselves. Terms can be unreasonable, but they are ethically valid.
Software distribution terms which say "you're prohibited to share" is unreasonable. It's a valid contract, but it's a bad contract in that if you agree to such a thing you're probably selling yourself too short. The other party gets to charge over and over again for something they invested effort into only once. It's unethical only if it involves fraud, as in the other party telling you how it actually costs the same to produce each copy as it costed to produce the original (which would be obvious BS).
Copyright however makes these unreasonable contracts double-bad. In reality if two people have an agreement it's between those two people. Copyright overrides that and says that the contract between A and B suddenly MUST be the same between B and C. You don't even need to carefully craft a viral contract (similar to GPL). It applies either way. That stems directly from the belief in intellectual property, the idea that you can own an idea, which is physically *impossible* - you can't own arrangements any more than you can own the number 5. The result is people being forced to behave under terms they never agreed to.
For example, an EULA might say you can share only two copies of the program. If you agree to that well, you agreed to it, no matter it's stupid to agree to something like that, but it's still a valid contract. Now you give a copy to a friend and this is where copyright comes in. Without copyright, you could give it to a friend under any terms you like so long as the EULA doesn't say anything on that. In other words you can give a copy to a friend and tell him he can share to as many people as he wants. He didn't break the first contract with this second contract.
But copyright swoops in and says "no can do, regardless of the fact your contract doesn't state it, you must give to the other person under the same terms as your original contract". What?? It's like a third person which has nothing to do with it suddenly coming in and dictating what you can or can't do, regardless of what either of the parties involved say. Of course, the goal of copyright is to get contracts stuck. What the first person with the original vendor agreed to now suddenly everyone else who receives it downstream must agree to, even if that wasn't provisioned in the original terms.
That's why I think what's unethical is copyright and any reliance on it, not the terms themselves. Terms can be unreasonable, but they are ethically valid.
> I tend to agree with the FSF position, that Proprietary Software is unethical.
I tend to go with ESR on this one, that it's just less efficient than Libre software. I won't go as far as he does to state how the GPL is not needed.
Just because voluntary interaction is more efficient does nothing to prevent coercive forces from ruining that efficiency by the simple expedient of externalizing their costs. Something has to exist to counter this expediency, and at this time copyright is an effective tool for that purpose in the realm of software.
If copyright is ever repealed, people will find other ways to do what they wish to do in that legal environment, just as they always have.
I tend to go with ESR on this one, that it's just less efficient than Libre software. I won't go as far as he does to state how the GPL is not needed.
Just because voluntary interaction is more efficient does nothing to prevent coercive forces from ruining that efficiency by the simple expedient of externalizing their costs. Something has to exist to counter this expediency, and at this time copyright is an effective tool for that purpose in the realm of software.
If copyright is ever repealed, people will find other ways to do what they wish to do in that legal environment, just as they always have.
Quoting:That's why I think what's unethical is copyright and any reliance on it
Then why do you claim copyright over your website articles? Why do you license them under CC-by-sa? If you don't like copyright you should put your work in the public domain.
Sander, like I said I don't have a problem with the *terms*, but the reliance on copyright to make those terms apply where they otherwise wouldn't (if the only "law" was the contract terms themselves).
CC-BY-SA is a statement of particular terms and I consider them a contract between me and readers of my articles. Also specifically the SA (ShareAlike) part means that these people agree that they will share under same terms. That's the original agreement I described above where they do agree to use those terms.
But if my terms were only to require credit (like CC-BY) then this would mean that those receiving the content directly from me and my site (or to be more specific, web server space I rented) would need to provide credit. That's their only obligation because that's all they agreed to. It's not their obligation however to ask *others* to give me credit too when HE gives it to them (not me) because that's a whole different transaction and thus a whole different agreement. In that instance he's the one making the terms because he uses HIS resources, not mine, to provide it to someone.
But copyright makes that illegal. According to copyright if my reader gives a copy to another person without the requirement to credit me and that person then publishes the work without crediting me that person would do something illegal despite the fact that he never agreed to such a liability.
Of course, I do like getting credit from all downstream receivers and hence asking my readers to ask their receivers to give me credit and for those receivers to ask theirs the same. I don't need copyright to do that.
As for enforcement, if you'll ask, I don't think copyright (or the state) are the only ones with the right to provide contract enforcement, but since they pretend otherwise (and have almost all the guns) I have no choice, not that I would necessarily go sue people for not giving me credit. After all there are many ways to sanction contract violations that don't involve threats of violence and money extraction.
EDIT: I realize I have "Copyright (c)" on two of my sites, but they're a relic from when I wasn't thinking this way. These two sites are pending a redesign however and I'll change that. I have a new third site which doesn't use such language at all and embeds the terms of use of my content within the "Terms of Service" page (see DoublePlusHuman.com if curious). :)
CC-BY-SA is a statement of particular terms and I consider them a contract between me and readers of my articles. Also specifically the SA (ShareAlike) part means that these people agree that they will share under same terms. That's the original agreement I described above where they do agree to use those terms.
But if my terms were only to require credit (like CC-BY) then this would mean that those receiving the content directly from me and my site (or to be more specific, web server space I rented) would need to provide credit. That's their only obligation because that's all they agreed to. It's not their obligation however to ask *others* to give me credit too when HE gives it to them (not me) because that's a whole different transaction and thus a whole different agreement. In that instance he's the one making the terms because he uses HIS resources, not mine, to provide it to someone.
But copyright makes that illegal. According to copyright if my reader gives a copy to another person without the requirement to credit me and that person then publishes the work without crediting me that person would do something illegal despite the fact that he never agreed to such a liability.
Of course, I do like getting credit from all downstream receivers and hence asking my readers to ask their receivers to give me credit and for those receivers to ask theirs the same. I don't need copyright to do that.
As for enforcement, if you'll ask, I don't think copyright (or the state) are the only ones with the right to provide contract enforcement, but since they pretend otherwise (and have almost all the guns) I have no choice, not that I would necessarily go sue people for not giving me credit. After all there are many ways to sanction contract violations that don't involve threats of violence and money extraction.
EDIT: I realize I have "Copyright (c)" on two of my sites, but they're a relic from when I wasn't thinking this way. These two sites are pending a redesign however and I'll change that. I have a new third site which doesn't use such language at all and embeds the terms of use of my content within the "Terms of Service" page (see DoublePlusHuman.com if curious). :)
Cool.
A reasonable conversation of free software by people who have thought well on the topic.
I'm so proud of you all.
A reasonable conversation of free software by people who have thought well on the topic.
I'm so proud of you all.
Comments on this story are closed.
I have a question: How many projects combine mysql code with their code?
Another question:
Doesn't Stallman's argument amount to saying "Gee, it's just too darned bad that MySQL wasn't offered under a BSD-style licence. If it were, we wouldn't be having this problem."