Conversation
Notices
-
Tomás Solar Castro
GNU's Not Unix
, Free Software Foundation
, Fundación Software Libre América Latina
, Fundación GNUCHILE
Please, help translating gnu.org http://ur1.ca/70bw4 !gnu !fsf !gnuchile !fsfla
- Jure Repinc (JLP) likes this.
- Oscar zambrano and Jure Repinc (JLP) repeated this.
-
Jure Repinc (JLP) likes this.
-
@mdim They are free to distribute. As Stallman has said, articles detailing our opinions need not be free to modify.
-
@repentinus so an idea expressed in words does not need to be free to modify, but an idea expressed in code must be? !fsf #RMS
-
@repentinus nobody is asking for a license which would enable us to enter RMS's mind and alter his opinion.
-
@rms, unfortunately, is out of touch with the rest of the open community. Genius on code, and #fs, but ignorant on #creativecommons.
Claes Wallin (韋嘉誠) likes this. -
@parlementum It is a question of functionality. Interacting with RMS' writings can be done with references. With code, it is not that easy.
-
Please read the legal text of CC-BY, sections 4b and 4c. RMS's reasoning is flawed and uninformed.
-
In addition, 3b, which requires that one "clearly ... identify that changes were made to the original Work" when creating derivative works.
-
I thought I saw where he had said that others should figure out how it should work when source code not involved.
-
I think he uses no derivs for his writing, most likely fearing distortions that happen anyway.
-
@repentinus that's a function without a difference as far as I can see, and based on a technical limitation not a philosophical position.
-
I'm legitimately interested in this question. Lest you think I'm trolling I'm !fsf member 10230
-
@eightyeight the only thing you show here is your own ignorance WRT @rms. he knows far more of CC than most of its alleged supporters
-
@eightyeight knowing something doesn't amount to supporting it. he understands CC pretty well, but rationale and goals are different
Heiki Ojasild likes this. -
@patrickniedzielski the moral imperatives that drive RMS to promote software freedom do not apply to purely artistic works
Heiki Ojasild likes this. -
@patrickniedzielski surely you, all perfectly informed, don't need me to name those moral imperatives for you, do you? ;-)
Heiki Ojasild likes this. -
I don't want to position myself because of my current ignorance, but for sure I trust #rms and believe his opinions are as valid as any.
-
@lxoliva that's still not a logical difference so far yhe only argument advanced is because RMS says so
laurelrusswurm likes this. -
I watched a conference recording where he used a chair as an example of "source code" which does not imply sware, as in construction plans.
-
@mvdan yeah, he uses that example in the speech © vs Community. IMHO being forbidden from adapting a chair or a phone are just as absurd
-
@lxoliva what does it mean for the work to be purely artistic? Can't software code be pure art as well?
-
@parlementum if you don't see the logical difference, that's just proof of your ignorance WRT RMS's position, not of his ignorance
-
@mdim that it serves no purpose other than pleasing our aesthetic senses. some sw corner cases might fit, but it's doubtful
-
That might have been a bit too harsh. No need to get defensive if you have your points clear.
-
@lxoliva so, RMS's essays serve only to please our aesthetic senses?
-
@mvdan indeed. it's just that this sort of ad hominem / strawman combinations piss me off
-
@mvdan and it's particularly painful when people claim to know what they're speaking of (other's position); no use offering corrections :-(
-
@lxoliva I'm well read on RMS and FSF theories. I'm just looking for facts and consistency, not ad hominem attacks thank you very much.
-
@mdim no, they're not purely artistic works. they're yet another kind of work.
-
@mdim CC recognizes there are different kinds of works that involve different moral and legal issues; CC-BY-* licenses are not for sw
-
@lxoliva so what's the point with purely artistic works then? We were talking about license RMS uses for his essays.
-
@parlementum don't make it a false dilemma. that functional works and purely artistic works exist doesn't rule out other kinds
-
@parlementum ok, please accept my apologies for the harsh tone. now, do you acknowledge that difft kinds may involve difft ethical issues?
-
@mdim getting acknowledgement that one size doesn't necessarily fit all kinds of works
-
@lxoliva you introduced the art example. I view it as irrelevant to the discussion. Anyway back to my wiki and its idea…
-
It's times like this that I wish I could favorite a dent 7 or 8 times. :)
-
Patience is needed for arguments. But if you feel you are loosing your time with somebody, you can just leave him there :-)
-
@lxoliva it will be interesting to think about these issues as I study art history in 2012 esp w regard to art, ownersh…
-
Alexandre Oliva
Free Software Foundation
, Aaron Toponce
, Richard Stallman Political Notes
, Charles Roth
@parlementum have a good one. sorry if I got into an unrelated thread, I meant no more than disputing @eightyeight's ad hominem on @rms
-
@parlementum please take into account that naming the same 4 freedoms as essential for all kinds of works may be an oversimplification
-
@mvdan yeah, perhaps I was too trigger-happy in taking the flame bait :-( thanks for the advice
-
@parlementum cool! I always find these issues interesting to debate. let me know what you come up with! best, and happy gnu year ;-)
-
None needed. I myself have been given this same advice way too many times already.
-
@parlementum Conclusion: RMS wins hands down! :) Let's start a !lp wiki page analyzing why his reasoning on this issue is flawed.
-
Wouldn't writing a wiki article from a subjective point of view defeat all purposes of parlementum?
-
Sorry, meant libreplanet there.
-
@mvdan who mentioned writing from a subjective point of view?
-
Assuming that a certain reasoning is flawed as a start doesn't seem like the best neutral way to start an objective article.
-
@lxoliva I certainly will. My views continue to evolve as I learn more about our past and our future ;)
-
@mvdan let me write one first and then judge on it. Maybe I'll even get in touch with http://ur1.ca/70vy8 to help me with an article.
-
@eightyeight well, I've read *and* talked to him about it. I say he's not ignorant WRT this topic. what now?
-
@eightyeight how about, instead of labeling him ignorant, you point out what you believe he doesn't know about CC?
-
Please do, because my morality says absolutely nothing about software. And furthermore, prove they do not apply to other works.
-
That is, prove that software holds separate moral grounds than other works.
-
To do so, you'll need to intrinsically separate art from practicality: go against cultural, evolutionary, and neuroscientific arguments.
-
And don't dispute other's ad hominem attacks when you go ahead making them yourself, asshole.
-
@patrickniedzielski given the CC context, this was already done; CC does not recommend CC-BY-* licenses for software
-
@patrickniedzielski but then, the burden of proof is actually on you. consider “tomatoes deserve freedom, because men do”
-
@patrickniedzielski the claim doesn't hold anything on its own, it's someone who supports the generalization that has to prove it
-
@patrickniedzielski having a term that refers to both men and tomatoes (say, thing, or works) doesn't lend any strength to the claim
-
Alexandre Oliva
GNU's Not Unix
, Free Software Foundation
, Richard Stallman Political Notes
, Patrick Niedzielski
@patrickniedzielski what @rms did was to propose ethical and social arguments that support the need for software freedom
-
@patrickniedzielski that was later extended to other works that perform a practical job, that are “means” rather than “ends”
-
@patrickniedzielski later, some proposed to apply the same freedoms to other works, but I've never seen them apply RMS's reasoning
-
@patrickniedzielski it may very well be that these rationales, that most of RMS's critics never even heard of, don't apply to other works
-
@patrickniedzielski this doesn't rule out that *other* arguments could support the generalization just fine, but they have to be stated
-
@patrickniedzielski and their existence says nothing about RMS's consistency with the philosophy he developed himself
sweet likes this. -
@lxoliva CC disrecommending its licenses for sw not positive evidence for diff ethical requirements for sw and other work freedom.
-
@mlinksva granted; CC doesn't take a stand on ethical reqs keeping the power in © holders's hands rather than challenging it
-
@mlinksva all it does is show that CC perceives software differently, which is enough to dismiss the one-size-fits-all oversimplification
-
@mlinksva at least from the POV of those who criticize RMS for his more elaborate position, while claiming he's ignorant WRT CC ;-)
-
@lxoliva not enough to dismiss "one-size-fits-all" (which is a really uncharitable way of putting "all works require freedom" position)...
-
@lxoliva as you say CC doesn't take ethical stand, so CC position is irrelevant, not evidence for or against
-
@lxoliva suspect yr missing pt of @patrickniedzielski's citing CC BY 4b which is practical not moral: ND not req to "protect" msg integrity.
-
@mlinksva point is that different freedoms may be essential, and different means to respect and preserve them are needed
-
@mlinksva CC position was what someone claimed RMS was ignorant about, WRT his writings' licensing practices. CC-condoned, no less! :-)
-
@lxoliva unfortunate for this conversation that @eightyeight mentioned #CC. Suspect FaiF Culture intended. Arguably RMS doesn't grok that.
-
@mlinksva I don't think I am. FTR, I disagree with RMS on ND for works of opinion, but that doesn't imply RMS doesn't know of CC
-
@lxoliva emphasis on /may/.
-
@mlinksva now, unless patrick or aaron come up with arguments rather than attacks, I suggest we don't waste more time feeding the flame
-
@mlinksva oh, *that* I wouldn't have disagreed so vehemently with
-
@mlinksva regardless, I dislike the assumption that the same 4 freedoms are essential to all works, without similar rationales
-
@lxoliva @mlinksva I never know what to say in this kind of conversations to dont look like the evil, but, well, I like…
-
@mlinksva *nod*. I don't have a definitive answer, and AFAIK nobody does; not RMS, not other debaters here. we're all ignorant :-)
-
@sweet maybe, for freedom of use. but no censorship warranted in either case. essential to freedom of speech.
-
@mlinksva if you see a CC BY-ND in my site, you are by your own if I ask you to remove any quote of some written opinio…
-
@lxoliva similar rationales have been provided for years http://freedomdefined.org http://wikieducator.org/Declaration_on_libre_knowledge
-
@lxoliva (I'm sure you know that. Do you have substantive criticisms of those?)
-
@mlinksva I mean, ... anyway xD, nothing
-
@mlinksva I don't see a rationale similar to that for the 4 sw freedoms in them. it's the same 4 freedoms, but with different rationales
-
@mlinksva like, the rationale for the 4 sw freedoms is to ensure a user can keep control over her own computations, i.e., sw is a means
-
@mlinksva but in those sites, I see social rationales (that I agree with BTW), but that AFAICT don't support the same 4 essential freedoms
-
@mlinksva so, if you start from these social rationales, you might even get to the 4 freedoms and apply them to software, but... (cont)
-
@mlinksva (cont) ... but it would be a significantly narrower rationale than RMS's rationale for the 4 sw freedoms
-
@lxoliva narrower? I don't see that at all, but then I think the rationales for FaiF sw&other need to be broadened greatly. >140c later!
-
@mlinksva yeah, much narrower, for it leaves out what's arguably the most important component of RMS's rationale: sw user autonomy
-
You're right, he was missing the point. I just wish not to argue with him, as I had already blocked him due to his psuedologic.
-
He might have had a bad day. I would not judge someone by how he behaved in a specific situation.
-
While that is true, I'd already blocked him before this conversation -- it wasn't just this situation, but all dealings I have had with him.
-
Freedom itself is essential and those big players will not have enough protection until freedom and democracy are gutted.
-
this may be a straw man. question may be what is he ignorant of wrt the needs of artists/musicians/etc. wrt Freedom in their realms?
-
they most certainly should be free to modify, just not free to attribute the mods back to us. they are another's opinion at that point.
-
I don't buy that. Plus, the enforcement structure needed to enforce copyright in today's world is the same for either case. BAD.
-
Perhaps the problem is thinking of freedom of works rather than freedom of people.
-
Why not just different legal issues?
-
@mvdan @patrickniedzielski how are you talking about? :O
-
lxoliva. Nothing important.
-
@mvdan porque? no he visto un dent de él que trate mal al tipo.... que raro D:
-
No tuvo mucho tacto en un par de dents y los otros se mosquearon, pero no hubo nada importante.
-
@mvdan ah, ya, que mal :(. si, yo la verdad coincido con lxoliva, pero eso no quiere decir que no se deba dejar de hacer cultura libre!
-
Diferentes opiniones, ya sabes que conllevan a ese tipo de cosas. Mientras haya respeto, no hay problema.
-
@zotz freedom is essential but abstract; for meaning it needs to be understood in such a way that one's freedom doesn't trample others'
-
@zotz maybe his claim was misstated, and I overreacted to the mistake for not realizing what it was. but disputing it can't be straw man
-
@zotz the first misassumption IMHO is to assume that copyright draws a sensible line around classes of works and behaviors
-
@zotz when thinking of what freedoms are essential to each class of works, I prefer to not get confused by copyright's lines
-
@zotz that's one reason to promote “software freedom” (for users) rather than expect “free [users] software” will be understood
-
@zotz in most of the world, © law applies equally to software and other works, so a © license covers to the very same legal issues, no?
-
@mvdan así es. me parece que algunas personas no toleran quando les hacen lo que ellas hacen a las otras :-(
-
@lxoliva si :-/, me extraña, pense que el bloque se guardaba solo para los trolles! :(
-
@sweet heh. it's understandable. it's just another textbook case of reductio ad trollum http://ur1.ca/724qy
-
No, copyright is a hodgepodge in my book. Does not apply equally to different creations.
-
but what good is software freedom if you are a "slave"? (some good, ok, but how much?)
-
again, it is the people who need to be Free and not so much the works. what law takes away their freedom in this discussion?
-
I haven't assumed such a thing in way too many years. you might think it was special interest driven... ~;-)
-
The "Freedom vs Liberty" thing I see some speak about?
-
@zotz how so? aren't the restrictions imposed by © law, that require © licenses to be lifted, the same for all kinds of works?
-
@zotz err... when we speak of software freedoms, we're speaking of *users*'s freedoms. artists/musicians are analogous to sw vendors
-
@zotz when I speak of essential freedoms, I'm speaking of freedoms necessary to not be/become a slave. sw freedom is one of many
-
@zotz right, it's for people to be free that some freedoms are essential, but what are these freedoms? many laws take away sw freedoms
-
@zotz good. then how about we keep copyright out of the discussion of what freedoms are essential for sw and other cultural works?
-
no they are not. some works don't get protected by copyright. some get protection but are treated differently. right?
-
@rbanffy in a purely commercial setting, I guess that's a better fit, yeah
-
copyright laws take away not just freedom wrt software but freedom of people in other areas too.
-
@zotz I never understood that distinction. it probably doesn't help that there's only one word for freedom and liberty in Portuguese
-
and doesn't putting the equivalent of an ND on a work deny those freedoms?
-
@zotz I was getting at the notion that © places power on authors to trample users' freedoms, and some authors regard that power as freedom
-
I never really did either but some have freedom unlimited while liberty is limited by the same liberty for others. iiuc
-
@zotz but in reality some notion of freedom is needed for cultural works so that authors' and users' freedoms don't conflict (no overlap)
-
we people need to be free. to do what we like. with what we have in our possession and more importantly in our minds.
-
what limits on this freedom are ***essential*** to society?
Mike Linksvayer likes this. -
@zotz AFAIK all works of authorship are equally subject (projected? from what?!?) to copyright: same restrictions, same length
-
@zotz the only exception I know of is software in Brazil: different law, different length, with more restrictions for users and authors
-
it is hard not to discuss copyright in the areas that copyright covers though as jail is involved.
-
@zotz sorry about this re-reply to an old post, accidental scrolling got me confused
-
many artists make art to satisfy themselves and not for others. they would not be commissioned programmers. not sw vendors either.
-
@zotz nod; no dispute that copyright law takes freedom away from users of several kinds of creative works
-
@zotz the dispute is on whether ND affects users' *essential* freedoms over e.g. purely artistic works
-
@zotz IOW, the dispute is on whether the ability to modify e.g. purely artistic works is an essential freedom
-
I agree, and that power is used outside of the software realm as well as in it.
-
@zotz for software and other works that perform practical jobs, ND becomes an ethical problem for such works impose behavior
-
@zotz but when it comes to purely aesthetic works, ND takes away options, for sure, but not control over one's own future
-
and the answer is yes it does and you can go to jail if you don't play along. if that freedom is not essential to you then... I don't know..
-
I see this distinction as a lack of respect for art and culture. A minimizing of their importance.
Mike Linksvayer likes this. -
@zotz eek, I need to get some sleep. I meant to type “protected”, not “projected”, to challenge the notion of copyright “protection”
-
@zotz to do what we like as long as that doesn't get in the way of others' doing what they like that doesn't get in ours etc ;-)
-
@zotz for example, I might support restrains on misrepresentation of factual information
-
might be nice if we could ever agree on the *facts*...
-
which brings us back to the distinction that some make between liberty and freedom.
-
@zotz but the question is what's morally/ethically wrong in curtailing the ability to make derivative works of purely aesthetic works
-
@zotz I agree it's desirable and I believe socially positive to be able to do so (which is why I'm a © abolitionist), however... (cont)
-
@zotz (cont'd) ... I regard it as a better/worse issue, not right/wrong or good/evil, whereas for sw and functional works it's right/wrong
-
@zotz this is disrespect in the same sense that claiming a certain medicine works better on asians or africans is racism ;-)
-
@zotz realizing that there may be material differences that may bring about practical consequences is not disrespectful
-
for one thing, the control apparatus needed to enforce the restriction.
-
@zotz “I authored this article”, and “product X is manufactured and sold by company Y” are facts, and laws prohibit misrepresentation
-
for another, the belief that you should control what goes into and then what comes out of another person's head/mind. subconscious violation
laurelrusswurm likes this. -
@zotz it should be a civil matter, like contract law, not a criminal matter, for sure
-
@zotz I don't see how ND controls people's I/O (so to speak). it may require more effort for output, but that's about it
-
@zotz I like to liken respect for others' freedom with “not blocking their way”, rather than “giving them a ride”
-
@zotz in this sense, ND doesn't prevent the communication of an idea, it just refuses to give a ride
-
http://ur1.ca/72jjo look for the word: subconscious
Mike Linksvayer likes this. -
people in one field, claiming something is essential themselves but not for those in another field does not smell right.
laurelrusswurm likes this. -
does apple make and sell the ipad? are you sure that your subconscious did not slip in a phrase or two from someone else in your article?
-
perhaps it should be but it is not. and according to proponents it is unworkable even in this drastic form and needs to be made more so.
-
@zotz citing small portions (consciously or not) isn't restricted by copyright laws I'm familiar with
-
@zotz apple designs and sells, but doesn't manufacture the ipad. maybe I should've written “or” instead of “and” to allude to TM?
-
@zotz and this is the crux of the matter, indeed. what AFAICT many people from free culture (and even free software) miss is that...
-
@zotz ... the foundation of the Free Software Movement is not the four freedoms, but user's control of her own computing
-
@zotz the four freedoms are essential for users to retain control, and to cooperate to that end
-
@zotz the lack of any of the four freedoms means the user doesn't control the software, but rather that the software controls the user
-
read the article and the story behind "This Song" http://ur1.ca/72l1j if it is not like that for you yet, wait a bit.
Mike Linksvayer likes this. -
@zotz the ethical judgement is that it's wrong to control others through the software they use, thus only free software is ethical
-
@zotz the goal is to eliminate unethical, user-subjugating software; users can only control their computations if all sw they use is free
-
@zotz and by free I mean respecting the four freedoms, essential for users to retain their autonomy and to cooperate to that end
-
@zotz within this rationale, software is a means to perform computations, and the 4 sw freedoms are means to retain control over computing
-
@zotz back to your issue, a fundamental distinction is that user autonomy is individual, whereas culture is shared
-
@zotz however, I don't see in any free culture definition a rationale for the 4 freedoms as means to individual users' ends
-
@zotz this lack of a similar rationale is what makes the adoption of the 4 sw freedoms by free culture movements unjustified to me
-
not saying you can't make an argument for sw freedom that doesn't apply to non-sw. leave it there. don't imply freedom unnecessary 4 non-sw
-
@zotz I don't imply that. I just believe different “freedoms” *may* be essential to retain user's freedom
-
@zotz because another fundamental distinction is that software controls computation processes, thus users, whereas aesthetic works don't
-
saying ND (etc.) is OK for non-code does that in my view.
-
@zotz so the question “what's required of an aesthetic work to respect freedom?” may have answers other than “the 4 software freedoms”
-
@zotz BTW, I'm not trying to “make an argument”, I'm describing the rationale (as I understand it) for the free software definition
-
@zotz and I believe this rationale was missed (disregarded? not known of?) when the free culture definitions I'm aware of were introduced
-
@zotz yeah, yet another reason why © needs to die. it didn't even extend to derivative works at first!
-
@zotz I hope I didn't say that. I meant it's not clear to me that ND is unethical/evil for all kinds of works
-
@zotz I haven't seen reason to regard sw freedom 1 (and 3) over non-sw as essential for users to retain control over their lives
-
Charles Roth likes this.
-
@lxoliva art and writing ARE software for humans.
laurelrusswurm likes this. -
@lxoliva An example of your humanity: you can say "I'm a © abolitionist" *and* support @rms position on art
Mike Linksvayer likes this. -
@lxoliva You can say "better/worse issue, not right/wrong" because you're a software person, not an artist
Mike Linksvayer likes this. -
@lxoliva For a programmer the ability to modify is essential to *you*; as an artist, the ability to modify is essential to us.
-
@laurelrusswurm I can only make sense of this using a different meaning for control, but I'll assume you didn't mean an overload fallacy ;-)
-
@lxoliva The difference is; only some sw users are programmers (why fsw is so misunderstood/unvalued)....
-
@laurelrusswurm how could an impossibility to modify a specific work stop you from making certain decisions about your own life/behavior?
-
@lxoliva Copyright law does that ALL THE TIME. Some of the scenes in my novel were choreographed to the music playing behind. © modify=cut
-
@lxoliva there is less problem for individual works, but when people cannot freely participate in artistic creation, there is a problem.
-
@parlementum so, if you're exposed to some form of art, you can't possibly reject its commands? I don't think so ;-)
-
@lxoliva In college ('80s) some of my best work was a class outtake reel cut to "The Monkees" theme. Left w/school. Now infringing = gone
-
@laurelrusswurm RMS's preference for ND for works of opinion could be achieved through ©-less contracts. I don't see your point
-
@laurelrusswurm says her to a published poet, writer, music composer and singer ;-)
-
@laurelrusswurm if that was my bias, I'd be defending software *authors* freedom, not software *users* freedom, don't you think?
-
@lxoliva the same is true of computer systems, there can be an adjustable policy re: execution of code.
-
@laurelrusswurm I know copyright is restrictive. point is, how does that take away from you control over your life?
-
@laurelrusswurm are you missing the distinction between means and end, e.g. software vs individual's computation?
-
@kevingranade I agree. however IMHO it's a different problem from the one that the Free Software Movement was started to address.
-
@lxoliva the thread the other day began because someone wanted to translate essays from FSF into Spanish but is preclud…
-
@lxoliva I test ideas like I test software - do they work.
-
@lxoliva as you mention right/wrong, what is your method for discerning such? IOW, what moral philosophy do you ~follow?
-
@kevingranade a computer inescapably follows the instructions it is given. the user either controls them or is controlled by them
-
@lxoliva but let me try and put together a full blog post. Then you can respond if you feel so inclined and a leisurely…
-
@lxoliva which can be simplified to "what's morally/ethically wrong with censorship?"
-
@parlementum not precluded, really. the FSF wants to have translations checked first, so that incorrect ones aren't attributed to them
-
@parlementum this preference is implemented in a way that may be misinterpreted as far more restrictive
-
@mlinksva I don't think I can put a label on it. the Golden Rule is the root, but there are various other influences
Mike Linksvayer likes this. -
@laurelrusswurm see, again, you're treating the works as ends, not means. creation/development is by authors, not users
-
@laurelrusswurm you can take a work of art and *understand*/*enjoy* it however you like, regardless of ©. sw is different
-
@laurelrusswurm now this is the ethical stance in which we all agree; prohibiting sharing is wrong and evil
-
@lxoliva Just as you can take a work of software and *understand*/*enjoy* it however you like.
-
@mlinksva that's pushing it IMHO. © doesn't cover ideas, so in theory you can always express any idea without infringing ©
-
@lxoliva Yes, I agree prohibition on sharing is wrong. For culture *and* for software. I raised my child to share.
-
@mlinksva that said, © has its roots in ©ensorship, and its censorship potential has grown over time; another reason to oppose it
-
@laurelrusswurm nope, that's the key difference. you can't understand the expression of the software if you don't even get it (sources)
-
@lxoliva And it makes me angry that I now must admonish him to learn complicated copyright laws so as not to inadvertently break the law.
-
@laurelrusswurm and you can't enjoy it only in the ways the dictator^Wdeveloper determined
-
@laurelrusswurm you can twist/reverse the words of a text as you read it, but you can't change how nF software manipulates your data
-
unintended repeat
-
@lxoliva Wrong. The program does what it does, just as art does what it does. Reverse engineer it if important to you; harder w/o source
-
@parlementum BTW, I agree ND is too restrictive for this purpose. requirements of disclaimers on modified/unreviewed works would do IMHO
-
@laurelrusswurm you can take a written recipe (means) to bake a cake (end) but not follow the procedure precisely, making changes as you go
-
@laurelrusswurm not so with software (means): the computation (end) will be precisely as dictated by the author, unless it's FS
-
@lxoliva yes, you use the software *as it was made*. You use a chair as it was made. To turn it into a table, you have to *modify*.
-
@laurelrusswurm Orson Scott Card wrote (QFM) that every book is a partnership between writer and reader
-
@laurelrusswurm each person gets a different story from the same words
-
@laurelrusswurm with non-free software, there's no room for such differences. everyone gets the same inescapable computation
-
@lxoliva just as when I watch a Star Wars movie it is the same every time... except when George Lucas fiddles with it or a fan recuts it
-
@laurelrusswurm I watched again the original Rollerball, and Robocop, after a couple of decades, and they were (I was) *very* different
-
@lxoliva I'd guess Orson Scott Card would sue the pants off a reader who rewrote one of his stories (&probably lobby to bring back flogging)
-
@laurelrusswurm still, nothing (not even ©) stops ppl from enjoying his work differently from what he intended; sw is not like that
-
@laurelrusswurm you can read his works but dismiss the religious beliefs he sneaks in, but you can't dismiss unwanted nFsw behavior
-
@lxoliva Yes, the biggest difference I see between software and art is that art is open to infinite interpretation.
-
@laurelrusswurm hallelujah! interpretation is change by the end user, something that users of proprietary software are denied
-
@lxoliva Hardly. Interpretation is how people assimilate art and culture - it's why copyright is a mad idea; no art is created in a vacuum.
-
@laurelrusswurm there's room for user adaptation in interpretation, but not for sw, interpreted mechanically by computers
-
@laurelrusswurm free/proprietary sw goes beyond law. sourceless or tivoized software is proprietary even without EULAs or © (say PD)
-
@lxoliva censorship is censorship even if there's a way to route around it by using different expression.
-
@mlinksva fair enough, you meant censorship of expressions, not of ideas. that sounds vaguely familiar: http://ur1.ca/72pt6 :-)
-
@lxoliva No. Interpretation - we filter art we are exposed to through our emotions and life experience - this is not adaptation.
-
@laurelrusswurm not in the copyright sense, for sure, but what you get can be different from what the author intended. != sw
-
@lxoliva when my child was small, he played the game Donkey Kong, but instead of doing what he was supposed to, he did what he wanted to do
-
@lxoliva Twitter is a legendary example of usesr using software as they want rather than how it was intended to be used.
-
@lxoliva I remember that. took a bit to find https://identi.ca/conversation/72190300 :-)
-
@laurelrusswurm most proprietary software offers some illusion of control to its users; only free software offers the real thing
-
in that light, right to modify s/w only important to "authors" and not to users right?
-
in today's world, can you think of an ethical way to effectively enforce ND?
-
are you sure it is an end? is it rather a means to effect a change is the people who experience it? does art have no effect on anyone?
-
more than that. can a restriction be effectively enforced without mucking with freedom for all in related and unrelated areas?
-
problem is thinking "rationale does not fit elsewhere therefore freedoms not needed elsewhere" rationale may fit elsewhere.
-
@zotz no, users need the freedom to modify the software so as to get the computer to perform the computation they want
-
@zotz without this right, the computer will interpret the software in the same way, carrying out the same unwanted computation
-
@zotz I haven't thought about that at all, so let me borrow your thoughts: can you think of an ethical way to enforce a contract?
-
@zotz effect, influence, yes. unescapable control, no.
-
@zotz good thing that's not my thinking ;-) “rationale doesn't fit therefore analogy is unjustified & essential freedoms may be different”
-
@zotz note that different doesn't carry any information on whether it's more or fewer freedoms, nor whether they're more or less important
-
@zotz as Lessig put it, Code is Law. but IMHO it's not like laws as learned in law school, but rather like laws of nature
-
see that Cory speech? you can't effectively limit any freedoms by copyright in the way that "they" want without taking away basic freedoms.
All Identi.ca content and data are available under the