[FM Discuss] updated IBD

[Camille Acey/FLOSS Manuals]

Daniel,

well rms has spilled much ink and sweatied up his brow to make it clear
that he is a Free Software advocate but not a supporter of Free Culture
(see: every conversation he has ever had with Nina Paley). We can't
conflate GPL software with all of Free Software and we can't conflate Free
Culture with Free Software. Lots of oranges and apples and pears and, well,

I understand the importance of keeping Free software Free, but I don't hold
as one of the motivations for that to be the fear of being "ripped off".
Frankly, I think what you're calling "ripping off" is what most people call
"monetizing", and the GPL never states that you can't make money off of
Free software. Free does not mean "without cost", it just means it adheres
to the (say it with me now) four essential freedoms:


   - *The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).*
   - *The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does
   your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a
   precondition for this.*
   - *The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor
   (freedom 2).*
   - *The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others
   (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to
   benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for
   this.*

Also, making free software non-free is a violation of a license and people
who do that can be penalized. That is what Free Software Conservancy and
other organizations like it do. If you don't think they are doing a good
job of it, you can definitely try to get involved in these communities and
encourage better practices.

I still don't understand exactly what you are concerned about and/or
proposing here....

Camille


On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 7:15 AM, Daniel James
<daniel.james at sourcefabric.org>wrote:

> 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
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.flossmanuals.net/pipermail/discuss-flossmanuals.net/attachments/20120703/e3c7e7a5/attachment.htm>