[FM Discuss] updated IBD

[Daniel James]

Hi Camille,
> I think you're operating with a fundamental misunderstanding of Free.

Perhaps you've misunderstood what I mean. Perhaps we just don't agree on
this occasion :-)

> Free is un-ripoff-able.

Not true, see http://gpl-violations.org/ for examples. If a Free product
has commercial value, you can be sure that someone, somewhere, will be
ripping it off.

Economic growth demands that what was once freely shared becomes a
commodity, somehow. Anything you create can have an advertisement placed
next to (or over) it. Even our friendships and family photos have
commercial value to Facebook.

If you release work under a free license, it's possible that not
everyone will abide by the terms of that license. The more commercial
value your work has, the more likely this problem becomes. Distributing
a free project under non-free conditions is just one example of a
rip-off. I don't want that to happen to my work (or yours).

> "What Is Free Culture?" - http://questioncopyright.org/what_is_free_culture

This article argues that free culture means we don't need lawyers, and
yet most free licenses are extremely complex and legalistic. Maybe all
those clauses were created to keep lawyers in business for decades to
come ;-)

Licensing is an attempt to exercise control over your work once it has
left your hands, using legal sanctions such as the threat of a copyright
infringement action. That control may be illusory, if you can't afford
to defend your licensed work in court (in multiple countries around the
world).

The GPL works very well for Red Hat, because it can afford to retain
counsel. I'm pretty sceptical that most people using Creative Commons
licensing, with the best of intentions, could afford to do that.

> That said, not sure why you're having this argument here and now in the
> midst of people who've committed their lives to Free Software and Free
> Culture. It's futile.

Well, I thought this was a discussion list, not an argument list :-)

I am merely pointing out that free culture needs to be defended against
exploitation by non-free interests, in order to be sustained. That is
the essence of the GPL, it's nothing new.

If you only care about spreading your ideas as widely as possible, and
you don't mind being exploited by people who may be actively working
against your interests, you don't need Creative Commons or the GPL,
public domain will do fine.

Cheers!

Daniel