Conversation
Notices
-
To !gnu and !fsf staff: is there any chance RMS would consider changing the license for his essays? Under what circumstances?
about 5 months ago from Choqok- lothlaurien repeated this.
-
he allows translation, if this helps.
-
@osamak, CC-BY-ND doesn't allow derivs, and translation would be it. I'm not interested in the permission culture, but in the #FreeCulture.
-
well, I didn't say that I supported it, :) and this *is* one circumstance in which @rms will probably give a permission.
-
@osamak I was wondering if it would be just a waste of time to try to explain to him that his reasoning regarding the issue could be flawed.
-
@Thistleweb Do you really think they would do that?
-
@Thistleweb They were reduced to saying that some of their news was not news but comment but could not tell you which parts.
-
No. Sections 3b, 4b, and 4c of CC-BY 3.0 disallow this.
-
Let me clarify actually -- they can do this under ND as well, as Fair Use allows selective editing. Copyright is on text, not meaning.
Mike Linksvayer and Osama Khalid like this. -
@mdim try explaining to him that you want to modify and redistribute his personal opinion essais, good luck.
-
@rubenquidam what's your point?
-
@mdim translation is not just any deriv. it's attributed to orig author, and expected to mean the same as orig, so permission makes sense
-
@lxoliva "Croatian translation by Marko Dimjašević of the essay by Richard Stallman". Both of us would have their own blame/attribution.
-
@mdim reader who resorts to translation can't tell which. it's just polite to let the author get someone he trusts to check a translation
-
Translations published on GNU.org: official translations. Not published on GNU.org: not official. Pretty easy!
Mike Linksvayer likes this. -
@cwebber fully agree. One would expect it to be obvious, just like with any other work (including software).
Christopher Allan Webber likes this. -
Including software, yes! And in fact if you *really* want a nerdocentric way to "ensure integrity", like software you can GPG sign release
Mike Linksvayer likes this. -
@cwebber for someone who's often misquoted and target of smearing attacks, I can understand his preference to not grant blanket perms
-
Nope, this is just an example of where we need to grow as people. Unless the original author did the "translation" it is not his work.
-
Approved translation versus unapproved translation. We can learn the difference. Don't need threats of jail...
Mike Linksvayer likes this. -
@lxoliva, please go and read the free culture definition at the http://ur1.ca/0j2. Nobody is asking for blanket perms.
-
@zotz I agree copyright is not the ideal tool for the job (and told even RMS so), but I still think consulting author 1st is best
-
@zotz one of the problems specific to translations is that translators can't clearly mark changes they made
-
@lxoliva, please don't call the free culture advocates liers. Once again, go and read the free cultural work definition.
-
@zotz they could mark everything, or points that took tricky choices, but they can't mark points they didn't know they mistranslated
-
@mdim please go read the recent long thread in which I explain why the FC def lacks a rationale to justify the same 4 freedoms
-
@mdim if you're going to resort to strawmen like that, I don't want to take part in this conversation
-
@mdim indeed, you're not asking for blanket perms. you're demanding a right to not even have to ask for perms ;-)
-
@mdim in case you can't tell what your strawman was: defending a right to lie does not amount to lying, like men can defend women's rights
-
@mdim also, “lie” may be too strong, for lying may imply intent to mislead, while I'm getting at unintentional changes in translation
-
@mdim he's gone on record stating he believes there are differences, yes. and AFAIK nobody has but hand-waved to dispute his position
-
@lxoliva you didn't answer my question.
-
we do not need a different set of freedoms. We need our freedom. In this case, an officially approved translation can do the job.
Mike Linksvayer likes this. -
@mdim no, I'm not implying that. I don't think it's wrong to defend a right to lie in some circumstances
-
@mdim however, in the specific case of translations, refusing to contact an accessible and responsive author is at least negligent
-
Does not matter, let the author give an approval to a translation he approves of. Anything else, put to the translator and not the author.
-
@mdim sorry. the answer is “no”, that's not the reason why he doesn't use such a license for his works of opinion
-
@zotz so, let's talk about our freedom. is it our freedom to misrepresent (intentionally or not) others' statements?
-
(Not FSF, but) it's unlikely. See: "New kinds of copyright" here - http://ur1.ca/74lpa
-
@lxoliva "yet another"? How many classes are there, and what is the basis for treating them specially? Why are the 4 freedoms inapplicable?
-
Ideologies often regard criticisms of them as untrue. Or lies. And satire/parodies involve representations people wouldn't agree with...
-
@mdim this came out mangled in 140c. I don't think it's even wrong to lie in some cases; defending the right to lie is just free speech
-
@kevingranade I don't know how many classes there are, that's just part of the unsolved problem
-
@kevingranade that logic is backwards. the question is why should should freedoms established within certain parameters apply outside
-
@kevingranade questions like “why is killing humans wrong, but killing plants ok? they're all made of atoms!” are equally backwards
-
@kevingranade what needs to be shown is that the same rationale applies, or that some other rationale supports the same 4 freedoms
-
@kevingranade without that, regarding the 4 freedoms as essential to a broader class of works is just a sweeping generalization
-
@robmyers yup. satire and parody are other classes of works, too ;-)
-
@lxoliva you're doing it again - implying something no one ever stated or asked for. I'm truly disappointed.
Patrick Niedzielski likes this. -
@mdim maybe you didn't *mean* to ask for it, but given the definition you pointed to, it is at least an unintended consequence
-
They are genres, not classes. It's possible to write a program or manual that is satire/parody... :-)
-
@robmyers yeah, I guess that's a better term. my compiler developer self labels them all as abstract classes ;-)
-
Resorting to ad hominem attacks now...?
-
@repentinus against whom? Myself? I'm supporter of free software as well.
-
perhaps not, perhaps so. However, people do it all the time and copyright does not provide protection from this.
-
please comment on the thought of an approved/unapproved or authorized/unauthorized translation.
-
This does not need to be shown for this class of work and that class of work. It is people who need freedom. (saying it again)
laurelrusswurm likes this. -
You seem to be buying into the thought "the default should be non-freedom, that freedom needs to be justified". It is the other way around.
Mike Linksvayer likes this. -
@mdim ok, that was an interesting argument, that required a lot of thinking to figure out where the difference is
-
@mdim the conclusion I came to was that I think it's wrong to take control away over someone else's computer through software, ...
-
@mdim ... even if that amounts to not stopping them from running a thermonuclear war through the software. however, IMHO it's not wrong...
-
@mdim ... for a person to object to having her statements twisted or corrupted, intentionally or not, reserving some veto power to that end
-
@zotz agreed. as I wrote before, copyright is not the right tool for teh job, and suggested we talk about freedoms, not copyright ;-)
-
@zotz I think the word “translation” itself already carries too much weight in implying orig author's statements
-
@zotz we need a word convey “I tried as hard as I could to make it mean the same, except for contacting the orig author” ;-)
-
@zotz I don't think I am. point is when it comes to interactions, one's freedom should be defined as not trampling others'
-
@lxoliva said "...I think it's wrong to take control away over someone else's computer through software..."
-
@zotz man, your statement doesn't have sense :-/, really man, I'm not kidding
-
@lxoliva mejor deja eso asi, ellos no comprenden el punto :-/. hacer cultura libre esta bien, pero, hacer peticiones co…
-
@lxoliva one great thing about free culture, like free software, is that it does not REQUIRE permission
-
@laurelrusswurm please explain how. that sounds like just trying to draw an absurd parallel to force a point through :-(
-
@lxoliva you're right, Mrs. Daisy made a really nice sweater for her granddaughter. Your cookies were delicious! Leaving now. Goodbye!
-
It doesn't. Google does machine translation. Do I trust it to be fully and idiomatically correct? No. So, author's seal of approval is good.
-
translating another person's writings to another language does not trample on that person's freedom though.
-
it is hard to figure out which statement you are referring to.
-
I hope see this feature in 2012 in identi.ca (this dent reply to this dent ) "figure out which statement you are referring to"
Mike Linksvayer likes this. -
Perhaps it can be sent as a part of the notifying email as well. & isolated above the notice when clicking on the "The notice is here:" link
صهيب likes this. -
Choqok has the "in reply to" feature. Maybe other StatusNet clients have it as well.
صهيب likes this. -
@zotz don't tell me you're naïve enough to expect machine translations to be as accurate as human translations!
-
@zotz agreed, but the question is whether entitling authors to demand pre-screening of translations tramples translators' freedom
-
@laurelrusswurm we've already agreed on impact on output, but that's not what I needed explanation on
-
@laurelrusswurm what needs explanation is how lack of 4 freedoms prevents you from *thinking* of something other than what you e.g. read
-
@lxoliva Ideas need expression. And culture needs reference. Lack of 4fs affects these as it does for code & linking in software
laurelrusswurm likes this. -
Of course not, point is, why trust any random translation to represent the accurate thoughts of the original author?
-
if we have to solve a problem & we have to affect another's freedom to do so, don't we choose the solution that least impacts their freedom?
drew Roberts likes this. -
does not need explanation. what needs explanation is justification for denying 4 freedoms everywhere.
-
@lxoliva The lack of 4 freedoms doesn't prevent people from using computers; laws denying the 4 freedoms merely dictate how they can be used
Rob Myers likes this. -
@lxoliva The lack of 4 cultural freedoms doesn't prevent people from using our brains; !copyright laws merely dictate how they can be used
Rob Myers likes this. -
@lxoliva If we have agreed that the denial of 4 freedoms has a bad impact on both culture and computing, I am not sure what you are arguing
Rob Myers likes this. -
@lxoliva The problem I have is @rms champions freedom for software, but not culture. I respect @rms but that is #hypocritical !copyright
-
@lxoliva What should concern @rms is his stance weakens the free software argument. If @rms can decide what may be free, so can NVIDIA #same
Mike Linksvayer likes this. -
@Laurelrusswurm he does not dictate he only has the power of persuasion and he is persuasive.
-
@lxoliva you seem to be regarding copyright as a valid moral right, if so I don't think we can even discuss the issue.
-
@satipera By deciding not to free his own words, @rms moral authority to ask software companies to free *their* work is devalued !gnu !fsw
Mike Linksvayer likes this. -
@Laurelrusswurm he is only doing the modern equivalent of Tony Benn recording all his interviews so he is not misrepresented.
-
@satipera !Copyright is the wrong law for misrepresentation; s/b libel or fraud. By using copyright in this way @rms denies culture freedom.
Mike Linksvayer likes this. -
@Laurelrusswurm can you point me to a concise explanation of the consequences of the ND option?
-
"You may not alter, transform, or build upon this work." ~ http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/2.0/ !q !cc
-
@robmyers that sounds like trying to push as a package the 4 freedoms as essential, while justifying the need for only some of them
-
@Laurelrusswurm are your books released under ND?
-
@robmyers that's because what remains to be shown for sw freedoms to apply is that their absence removes user autonomy similarly
-
@robmyers showing that there's no relevant difference in the way lack of freedoms 0 and 1 block user's *internal* behavior for sw vs etc
-
http://www.ur1.ca/b79l: "The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give ... "
-
@satipera Yes.
-
@satipera I read it wrong. My first book is CC-by-nc-sa ... not ND , and I'm on record to be deeding it to the !publicdomain after 5 years
-
@zotz because that's what a translation is supposed to be. we just know better when it comes to mechanical translations
-
actually the burden of proof is on you, all freedoms should be granted by default, then we prune as needed. not vice versa.
-
@zotz y, translations are a distraction. the real question is whether X has the "freedom" to put words in Y's mouth. I don't think so.
-
@Laurelrusswurm Surely there is a difference between the freedoms we should expect of software to those of the written word.
-
@satipera As a writer, the written word deserves as much freedom as possible. If making gradations, words should be more free than software.
-
@Laurelrusswurm What is to stop someone from taking a work not under ND and changing it beyond recognition?
-
and even beside that, I think that @laurelrusswurm, etc. would know better here, being artists. @rms, you, and to a cer…
-
@satipera only legal action, and it may not be worth the cost
-
@satipera Gradations: Who does free software benefit? Computer users. Who does free culture benefit? Everyone.
-
I was referring to your example. I the four freedoms as indivisible. And applicable to cultural texts as well as computational ones.
-
If you do that, it wouldn't even be subject to charges of plagiarism. If attributing it to the original speaker, it would be libel or fraud.
-
For cultural works? Histories of sample-based music, appropriation art, drm-encumbered media, lawsuits against academics all demonstrate it.
-
@Laurelrusswurm if this is the case what is the benefit of not releasing under ND.
-
@laurelrusswurm @rms does strike me as inconsistent here, but one difference is that if I express an opinion in writing i'd be less...
-
@laurelrusswurm... less tolerant of alterations of my wording than of alterations code i written to perform a function.
-
@when I first learned about !cc licenses, it never even considered ND. With an ND license, someone wanting to translate my book couldn't.
-
@satipera Also with an ND license, fan fiction is discouraged, can result in prosecuted fans.
-
@Laurelrusswurm I see that is valid for fiction but what about opinion or non fiction?
-
@laurelrusswurm could you point me to where you're on record re publicdomain after 5 years? i've been looking for examples of such, thanks!
-
@Laurelrusswurm I have just seen your dent about translation.
-
@mcnalu Yes, because your words are important, if someone alters/misinterprets and uses them to commit fraud or libel, there is law for it.
-
@coyo I think he does, just selectively. Because he doesn't consider it as important. What he misses is that the 2 intertwine.
-
@Laurelrusswurm What would anyone want to do with an opinion piece under non ND apart from translate it which would not alter its meaning?
-
@laurelrusswurm technically, he could contact you and get permission. that's the idea. although I do prefer non-ND, non-NC ones.
-
@satipera Opinion needs to be open to discussion in a free society. A free people *must* have the right to challenge, or they are not free.
-
@Laurelrusswurm I agree but something does not have to be CC non ND before you can challenge and debate it.
-
@Laurelrusswurm or are you saying under these terms you can't even quote parts of it to disagree with?
-
@kevingranade I'd like to clear that up. how did you get that incorrect notion that I regard copyright as morally legitimate?
-
@satipera regardless of the licence, you can do anything with it, the key is whether or not you are legally challanged - which costs money
-
@satipera if the creator doesn't legally chalenge you, the licence is irrelevant - perhaps socially shunning them would add "motivation"
-
@bramalab You could get permission from a software manufacturer as well (Supaplex comes to mind)
-
@laurelrusswurm you're falling for a sweeping generalization. rms has shown why the 4 freedoms are essential for sw users, not for *
-
you still ignore the fact that a distinction between approved and unapproved translation is enough. limiting freedom more is not needed.
-
@Thistleweb I realise that but we are talking about the legal ramifications not if they enforced.
-
need for freedom does *not* need to be proved. need to *limit* freedom needs to be proved. give that argument a break already.
-
@satipera If write an article for publication to properly refute an opinion piece, point by point, it needs direct references.
-
@laurelrusswurm err... if *any* law or technique can be used to stop you from publishing a translation, you don't have that freedom
-
@laurelrusswurm software freedom is not about copyright, it's about *anything* that denies you the essential freedoms
-
@satipera In the US they have "fair use" laws which allows some; in Canada we have "fair dealing" which is much less liberal.
-
@tekk disagreed, I'm not the one who's trying to apply the freedoms rms proved essential for sw users outside the domain he did
-
@satipera and both are subject to lawsuits, and the rules are flexible enough for interpretation. The rich can censor the poor in law.
-
@tekk it's not labeling something as a freedom, or hand-waving about it and pointing at others, that make it a legitimate freedom
-
@satipera true
-
@lxoliva ND is directly contrary to the 4 freedoms. ND is prohibited under the GPL.
-
@Laurelrusswurm if ND is limiting debate in some countries then you certainly have a point. I feel I have learned a little today.
-
@robmyers all of these have to do with output, not internal behavior. it's // with sharing (mod?) sw, not running (audited/adapted?) sw
-
@robmyers what needs to be shown for rms's rationale to apply is that not having freedoms 0 and 1 bring you under author's control
-
and if I want to translate it, make some changes and say this is what "I" think. not what the original author thinks?
-
@robmyers that, or coming up with an independent rationale to support these freedoms as essential for users of cultural works
-
it is the attribution of a derivative to the original author and not the copyright violation of making that derivative that is the problem.
-
it is not *essential* that you be allowed to go to bed before 10pm, but who has the right to deny you that freedom on what grounds?
-
Mike Linksvayer likes this.
-
That's free speech for you. :-)
-
@zotz that's enough for *me*, but clearly it's not enough for others who have been maliciously misquoted and want to avoid that
-
Or restrict your freedom to use the work. Which preventing e.g. reading aloud (0, via Lessig), study and modification (1) certainly do.
-
freedom is the default and *needs* no proof. what requires proving is the need to limit freedom.
Mike Linksvayer likes this. -
@Laurelrusswurm Culture of course is important, but do not underestimate the importance of software freedom it will affect everything.
-
@zotz if you want to use the same 4 freedoms proved essential for sw users' autonomy in another domain, the rationale has to apply
-
@zotz @suhaib I'd love those features, added http://status.net/open-source/issues/3538 and http://status.net/open-source/issues/3539
صهيب likes this. -
@satipera I do believe that it does. The irony is that culture and technology are intertwined; it is why I champion free software.
-
Free speech requires that we read, study, modify and distribute texts. So does free software. So... :-)
Mike Linksvayer likes this. -
@satipera Culture means more than books and plays and music; it is the fabric of human society that allows the exchange of knowledge & ideas
Rob Myers likes this. -
@laurelrusswurm and indeed ND would subjugate sw users to behavior coded by the sw authors. not so for works interpreted by people
-
@zotz that's fine by me. I support that freedom, and I think it's desirable, but I couldn't so far show limiting it is unethical.
-
@lxoliva Yes. Because ideas (or minds) are the most difficult things in the world to change, I generally support any licensing decision.
-
If you can't translate, correct, remix, add commentary to or parody a work, the author controls you. This affects academia/music/art *now*.
Mike Linksvayer likes this. -
@robmyers I'd like to agree with that, but I don't think it goes that far. ideas can be expressed without copying "recent" works
-
@lxoliva I've never discussed translation with anyone not super skeptical of accuracy of even officiously authorized&endorsed translations.
-
And software can be written in assembler. :-)
-
@zotz behavior that has no detrimental impact on others is my undisputable freedom; conflicts'd draw lines between my freedoms and theirs
Rob Myers likes this. -
@zotz e.g., if my wife needs me to take care of our daughter till 10pm, I can't go to bed before then ;-)
-
@coyo Agreed, but can go either way. If big copyright conglomerates succeed in closing access to tech, we'll be doomed.
-
@robmyers reading aloud is not an essential software freedom; no law stops you from studying say a book. you trying to show differences?
-
@robmyers again, that's all *output*, and that was already sorted out. it's internal processes that need proof of similarity to complete
-
It's an example from Lessig of DRM affecting both cultural and software freedom. If you can't modify SW to read aloud you're still free?
-
making a derivative of someone's work has no detrimental impact on them. attributing the derivative to them may. fighting the wrong fight.
-
It's *use* (& speech). And not output, associated rights. Tivo-ised or ND software isn't free, nor is DRM-ed, litigious or ND culture...
-
@laurelrusswurm @rms should support free culture. free culture seems like a good idea.
-
@laurelrusswurm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_culture_movement a good overview for those who arent familiar with it.
-
@laurelrusswurm I don't see how ND takes away control over your own life; at most it requires you to do more work to influence others
-
@robmyers err... to read itself aloud? or to read other works aloud? anyway, private reading (alone or not) isn't governed by copyright
-
@zotz clearly you've never had a passage you wrote quoted out of context to mean the opposite of what you fought your whole life for ;-)
-
@lxoliva Just as I could say software freedom is unimportant, all you need do is buy the correct software for the work. !gnu
Rob Myers likes this. -
Which makes DRM preventing it all the more galling. And public culture requires public performance or distribution, which are covered rights
-
@lxoliva What possible justification can you have for daring to recompile the work of others? Use the computer the way the creator intended!
-
Quite. If we can always create other cultural works and don't need to quote, we can just make out own OS in assembler and Windows is fine..
laurelrusswurm likes this. -
@laurelrusswurm but that's not private reading IIUC; public performances aren't covered by the 4 essential sw freedoms BTW
-
@laurelrusswurm ... and that whoever maintains this sort of control over you is behaving unethically
-
@laurelrusswurm exactly! the creator of the computer meant you to be able to perform any computation with it, thus general purpose ;-)
-
@robmyers we seem to have diverged into speaking of copyright instead of freedoms again
-
@robmyers please whenever you bring up an issue WRT copyright, consider whether it could be applied just as well through lawful contracts
-
@robmyers I think this helps see more clearly where the line for essential freedoms is
-
@lxoliva No. The creator of the computer *allows* you to perform the uses they decide you can use.
-
@robmyers except for lack of hardware documentation, secret algorithms and file formats, and sheer complexity
-
Agreed. Although since software is a form of literary work this is hardly surprising. :-)
laurelrusswurm likes this. -
Like UNIX and trade secret law pre-software copyright in the US?
-
@laurelrusswurm I don't understand what you mean with this dent
-
All of which require study & access. These are not separate issues, although they may differ in degree depending on the project. Art...
-
...requires study to access & modify competently too. I know this from personal experience and from case studies of culture & academia.
-
@lxoliva Those secret algorithms are secret for a reason. If you don't like it, you don't have to use it. Make your own. No free ride!
-
@laurelrusswurm oh, you mean the designers of recent locked-up iLose machines, rather than Turing, von Neumann et al?
-
@robmyers sw is a literary work for copyright purposes in most of the world, but that's irrelevant to tell essential freedoms
-
@lxoliva software freedom is an IDEA. Copyright law does not provide software freedom, rather the contrary. Licenses are copyright addons
-
@robmyers precisely because the functional behavior determined by software is not in any way related with is literary value
-
@robmyers yeah, that's one example. NDAs, contracts that prohibit "tampering with", etc
-
It's relevant as it mean the freedom to study, modify & distribute copyrighted literary is key to free software & free culture.
laurelrusswurm likes this. -
@laurelrusswurm the reason is to gain control over the user's computations, which rms's rationale concluded to be unethical
-
Functional and literary value both vary but are not required to gain (and therefore be restricted) by copyright. Or contract law. Or TPMs.
-
@laurelrusswurm the argument of don't like it, don't use it is very true. rms is against mandatory copyleft for all sw, for example
-
can't have happened to rms right? copyright prevents that right? oh, wait... you again speak of being misattributed and not wrongly derived.
laurelrusswurm likes this. -
@laurelrusswurm i personally think that the future will bring media that is more interactive in real time, novels, movi…
-
if so, then Free Software not needed so long as user can write his own Free Software. But we know this is bogus.
-
@lxoliva The natural right is to truth (against misattribution/misrepresentation implicitly/explicitly), not to prohibit copies&derivatives.
-
@laurelrusswurm ah, I think I see the misunderstanding now
-
@laurelrusswurm I was speaking of private reading (aloud) and you added someone else to the scenario, making it a public performance
-
@laurelrusswurm then I mentioned that public performances are not something that's even in the radar of the essential sw freedoms
-
@lxoliva unfortunately, Turing and von Neumann are out of business. They don't sell computing machines any more.
-
@laurelrusswurm public performances are certainly important for many cultural expressions, so the 4 sw freedoms are not enough
-
@lxoliva What requires justification is the removal of that personal liberty, not the restoration of it.
-
@laurelrusswurm I preferred the prequel ;)
-
@robmyers I don't think that's how assessing essential freedoms works. figure'em out 1st, *then* look for conflicts and lift them
-
@laurelrusswurm it really can. if Big Media gets control, we will have to consciously buck the entire system, and publi…
-
We did: it's called free speech. Where copyright interferes with it like it does with the texts of software the solution is similar. :-)
laurelrusswurm likes this. -
@zotz yeah, bogus and backwards. start with: how can a user use a piece of software without losing control over the computation?
-
@crosbie agreed; the partial conflict with the 4 cultural freedoms shows sth's wrong with them, not right with copyright
-
@laurelrusswurm I agree. but look, if we succeed in killing copyright, contracts would do the same, and that'd be just as wrong
-
@laurelrusswurm so, would you say contracts are wrong? I hope not; but that you'll agree *some* contracts are unethical
-
@lxoliva certainly some contracts are wrong. The deeds of sale when human beings were sold into slavery were wrong.
-
@laurelrusswurm Re: copyright, have you seen Macaulay's response to Talfourd's bill of 1841? 2tu.us/3nkl posted by Eric Flint 11 yrs ago
-
@lxoliva Quite. I tried to point out this error to Benjamin Mako Hill wrt http://identi.ca/url/553260 but not well received.
-
@laurelrusswurm 'Copyright is monopoly, and produces all the effects which the general voice of mankind attributes to monopoly.'
-
@brashley46 'It is good that authors should be remunerated; and the least exceptionable way of remunerating them is by a monopoly. Yet...'
-
@brashley46 Macaulay is new to me, but it looks interesting; I will read it later http://www.ur1.ca/3r72a !copyright
-
@lxoliva if you don't consider copyright to be morally valid, what is the basis for opposing application of the 4 freedoms to all works?
-
@lxoliva I thought I was misunderstanding somehow, but it was the only conclusion that seemed to make sense.
-
@lxoliva again, lack of control over ideas is the natural state, returning them to that state by subverting copyright needs no justification
-
@kevingranade 1. the 4 sw freedoms are essential and threatened regardless of copyright over software
-
@kevingranade 2. what I question (!= oppose) is the *unjustified* adaptation of the same 4 freedoms to a much broader scope
-
@kevingranade 3. the 4 sw freedoms may be too broad or too narrow: execute for any purpose? source code? public performances?
-
@kevingranade beast kills beast is also a natural state :-) ethical considerations are the basis to respect your neighbor
-
@lxoliva true, even aboloshing copyright and patent law might be insufficient for total software freedom.
-
@lxoliva I think I see your point now, though I still think ND (orig. point of contention I think) has no valid basis.
-
no, why start with a specific realm. Why not assume that all freedoms restricted by copyright are unethical unless proven otherwise?
-
@zotz I'm speaking of how the free software definition, reused by free culture, came about
-
@zotz I wouldn't disagree with that assumption, once we've determined what the freedoms restricted by copyright are
-
@zotz I don't want to assume a legitimacy or illegitimacy of any of the rights or powers; that would be a bias hard to defend
-
http://ur1.ca/77ml2 - clarifications and improvements welcome. @laurelrusswurm @robmyers @mlinksva @crosbie
drew Roberts likes this. -
Thanks @zotz... very nice job.
-
well said. link to http://ur1.ca/77n3r would be nice for readers.
-
you are still looking at it wrong, assume any restrictions you want to place on another are wrong. Now justify them if possible.
-
copyright law puts restrictions on people. you already hold some of them to be unethical. therefore assume all are unless proven otherwise
-
@zotz so... stealing, killing, and other restrictions placed on others are wrong? sorry, I don't agree with that sort of reasoning
-
@zotz that's why I say we have to first determine what the freedoms are, that don't trample on others' freedoms
-
@zotz I don't buy that either. the ones I hold as unethical are so by proof, not faith or groundless assumption
-
problem is you hold that "unethicalness" of restrictions needs proof while I maintain here that "ethicalness" of restrictions needs proof.
-
@lxoliva interesting, depending on what's meant by mandatory. do you have a reference for that by chance?
-
@zotz indeed, my very peeve with the free culture adaptations of 4 sw freedoms is the by-fiat nature of the adaptation
-
@zotz but that carries assumptions on what it means to restrict, when it comes to overlapping claims
-
no, a restriction is something I may want to do that the law says I can't do. those are to be assumed unethical unless proven ethical.
-
@zotz but see, this goes both ways! law forbids the "right to `protect' works from changes forever"; should we assume it's unethical?
-
huh? I can protect my works forever and the law does not forbid this. I can burn something I have written before ever letting anyone see it.
-
@zotz sorry if I wasn't clear, I was hintting at copyrighted works going into public domain
-
everything goes there on publication w/o the restrictions copyright places on the actions of all. those restrictions need to be justified.
-
I lately came across your web web site and have been reading along. I thought I would leave my very 1st comment. http://weightgainhelp.com/
Derrick Kemmerer likes this.
All Identi.ca content and data are available under the