Re: [libreplanet-discuss] The FSF Allows No Derivatives,
You can simply have a distinction between endorsed or authorized translations and other translations. It's reasonable enough to require that the translation be indicated as not an officially accepted translation versus requiring actual permission to publish any translation. Obviously, it is prohibitive to ask someone who is making a derivative of a derivative of a derivative of a translation to ask permission from each person from each stage and have permission denied at any point. Ideas are hampered and progress is limited when we fail to respect cultural freedom, and there are ways to address the other concerns about mis-translation than simply the bludgeon of completely blocking anything that lacks explicit permission. On 04/26/2015 12:43 AM, Giuseppe Molica wrote: I certainly did not say that -- I think someone misunderstood and got it backwards. The problem with translation is that if it is not done right it has the effect of altering the point. A license that permits anyone to translate a work has the effect of permitting anyone to alter its position. If there were a way to permit only correct, clear translation, I would permit that -- but there is no realistic way to assure that a translation is correct. See http://gnu.org/philosophy/copyright-vs-community.html for my views about modification of non-functional works such as art and opinion. I agree with Dr. Stallman. Someone could misunderstand what the author was thinking while writing, or saying, that part he's translating, and this means that in the translated copy that misunderstanding become the author's point of view. And, IMHO, this is unacceptable. This is not a problem with technical works, for example manuals, but it is with all the opinion papers, or talkings; words are more powerful then guns, so it's very important to use them correctly. -- Giuseppe Molica
Re: [libreplanet-discuss] The FSF Allows No Derivatives,
Dnia niedziela, 26 kwietnia 2015 09:43:06 Giuseppe Molica pisze: I certainly did not say that -- I think someone misunderstood and got it backwards. The problem with translation is that if it is not done right it has the effect of altering the point. A license that permits anyone to translate a work has the effect of permitting anyone to alter its position. If there were a way to permit only correct, clear translation, I would permit that -- but there is no realistic way to assure that a translation is correct. See http://gnu.org/philosophy/copyright-vs-community.html for my views about modification of non-functional works such as art and opinion. I agree with Dr. Stallman. Someone could misunderstand what the author was thinking while writing, or saying, that part he's translating, and this means that in the translated copy that misunderstanding become the author's point of view. And, IMHO, this is unacceptable. Problem is -- and this very discussion shows it *very* well -- that even with such restrictive license put on works of opinion (I do not subscribe to the view that this distinction is relevant, but let's work with that), views *are* misunderstood. So, the license does not fix this problem, at all. This is not a problem with technical works, for example manuals, but it is with all the opinion papers, or talkings; words are more powerful then guns, so it's very important to use them correctly. I can't help but notice that this very thread started with mischaracterization of Dr Stallman's position, incidentally published under an -ND license. So again, licensing does not seem to solve this problem. Again, this is not to say that misunderstanding and mischaracterisation of opinions are not a problem at all -- they are, and an important one at that. But Copyright and -ND (and similar) licenses are not the correct tool for solving this. Even with CC By or (my license of choice for my works of opinion and any other) the copyleft CC By-SA, authorship has to be clearly attributed, including that of derivative works (as in: a derivative work is *not* what the original author authored, this has to be made clear, according to the license). On the other hand, people can and do misquote or misattribute opinions and quotes, regardless of copyright law and licenses. Non-free, -ND (and similar) licenses do *not* solve the problem you and Dr Stallman want them to solve; and they have a measurable negative effect on the whole libre culture sphere (by enabling diluting/openwashing what libre culture or libre-licensed content actually mean). We can find an analogy in software licensing sphere in JSON Public License: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#JSON Software developer might argue that they want users to use their software for Good, not Evil, but we feel (don't we?) that this is a bit too far. As far as translations are concerned, again, I feel the right way to go about is, is to ask for authorization of translation if one wants to claim it is an official translation; and on the other hand, insist that if anybody quotes me in a different language, it is taken from such an authorized translation. I feel it much better preserves freedoms of all parties involved, while not losing any effectiveness as far as making sure that opinions are not mischaracterized. And about the work of opinion distinction: art works by putting things in new context. A work of opinion at one time can become a work of art at a different time, just as a purely practical object can become a work of art if put in a different context: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain_%28Duchamp%29 Or consider HaikuLeaks: http://boingboing.net/2010/12/29/haikuleaks-cable-is.html Artists sometimes use works of opinion to infuse meaning into their work; the simplest example could be an image of a US drone with a quote from a certain Nobel Peace Prize laureate. I feel gratified when I see my works of opinion used in art or *as* art. And I feel no less frustrated by people misquoting my works of opionion. Libre, copyleft licensing of my works fosters the former, and while it does not help curtail the latter, no license, even most restrictive, would be able to do this. -- Pozdrawiam, Michał rysiek Woźniak Zmieniam klucz GPG :: http://rys.io/pl/147 GPG Key Transition :: http://rys.io/en/147 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [libreplanet-discuss] The FSF Allows No Derivatives,
Dnia niedziela, 26 kwietnia 2015 20:49:56 Bryan Baldwin pisze: On 04/26/15 20:24, rysiek wrote: Problem is -- and this very discussion shows it *very* well -- that even with such restrictive license put on works of opinion (I do not subscribe to the view that this distinction is relevant, but let's work with that), views *are* misunderstood. So, the license does not fix this problem, at all. The impetus of the license isn't to increase understanding or decrease misunderstanding amongst readers of a work of opinion, but to stop the distribution of misrepresenting derivative works. I can't follow you when you start from a false predicate. But why do you want to stop the distribution of misrepresenting derivative works? Precisely to increase understanding and/or decrese misunderstanding among users. It's a means to an end. And my point is: licensing is the wrong means to that end. Because: a). regardless of the license, I can still do a parody of your work of opinion, this is explicitly allowed for by copyright; b). regardless of a license, people *will* misunderstand/misrepresent it; c). regardless of the license, it is *illegal* to misattribute quotes or to misquote, anyway. -- Pozdrawiam, Michał rysiek Woźniak Zmieniam klucz GPG :: http://rys.io/pl/147 GPG Key Transition :: http://rys.io/en/147 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [libreplanet-discuss] The FSF Allows No Derivatives,
Dnia niedziela, 26 kwietnia 2015 20:10:47 Bryan Baldwin pisze: We have enough problems with people misrepresenting other people, especially Mr. Stallman. And licensing doesn't help with this situation in even a bit. For reasons outlined before. Which #%*ng essay are you gagging to translate? Maybe we could at least try to keep it civil on this list, please? Maybe if you offered to do it, FSF would say yes. Several years ago volunteers of an organisation I worked for translated the following article: http://ur1.ca/g5iwh We reached out to FSF for permission to publish it; it has been ignored completely. I stipulate that the fact that this text has not been available to 40 million Polish speakers worldwide may have been a larger net loss than potential for misrepresentation/mistranslation. Cultural freedom has a massive sandbox and it can leave works of opinion the hell alone. There's way more important work to do than worry about frivolities and feckless pagentry. There is no clear distinction between works of opinion and the rest; as I have argued before, a work of opinion can be used as a base for work of art, or an educational endaevour, or otherwise. This distinction is as artificial, as it is harmful. To quote a classic: I can't follow you when you start from a false predicate. -- Pozdrawiam, Michał rysiek Woźniak Zmieniam klucz GPG :: http://rys.io/pl/147 GPG Key Transition :: http://rys.io/en/147 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [libreplanet-discuss] The FSF Allows No Derivatives,
On 04/26/15 20:24, rysiek wrote: Problem is -- and this very discussion shows it *very* well -- that even with such restrictive license put on works of opinion (I do not subscribe to the view that this distinction is relevant, but let's work with that), views *are* misunderstood. So, the license does not fix this problem, at all. The impetus of the license isn't to increase understanding or decrease misunderstanding amongst readers of a work of opinion, but to stop the distribution of misrepresenting derivative works. I can't follow you when you start from a false predicate. -- 0xE1A91299.asc Description: application/pgp-keys signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Hello, and setting up a server
On 04/26/15 02:36, Jim Garrett wrote: Am I correct in thinking that running a server for this purpose requires a static IP address? No. You can enlist the aid of a dynamic dns service. I use DNSexit. The catch of this solution is that you must run a script on your server that periodically checks its IP address and updates the dns server when it changes. Sound simple but the biggest gotcha is when the update script stop working. For myself, I use a bash script wrapper around the perl updater to detect when it has lost the plot, then restart it. Lots of inexperienced people running servers sounds like a large-scale security disaster waiting to happen. Is there any way this could be managed? I just started a high security project at work this year. How far you need to go depends on the sensitivity of the data and services you want to protect. Here is some low hanging fruit: * Do not use SSH, or enable SSH on a non-standard port. * Use SSHGuard to detect and stop brute forcing attempts (works for more than just SSH btw). * Use IPTables, or similar firewall, to block ports other than those being used. * Install Snort to detect network intrusion attempts. * Install AIDE to detect intrusion (and rootkits) at the filesystem level. -- 0xE1A91299.asc Description: application/pgp-keys signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [libreplanet-discuss] The FSF Allows No Derivatives,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 04/26/2015 05:24 AM, rysiek wrote: Non-free, -ND (and similar) licenses do *not* solve the problem *** I think the opposite. ND enables the author to say: this translation is fine and conserves the original meaning of the text. Because we are a social species in the Internet era, it's obvious that someone willing to translate RMS will send him the translation for approval, and the author will accept or refuse it (and often offer advice for better translations.) Non-free licenses (or simple copyright) impede translations, distributions, etc., period. ND (no-derivatives) leaves the control of the document to the author. An opinion is the personal view of the author, and therefore it does not make sense to derive anything from it. You would as well write your own opinion, or a response to the original opinion. It's recognizing the YOYOW principle from the WELL: You Own Your Own Words. Anyone can read them, but if they want to do something else, they should apply sensible courtesy and ask the author first. The problem arises when the author is unable to respond to social demand for translations or authorized derivative works. Then only the original version can be referred to, which is not a problem for those who speak the language. Nevertheless, people who cannot read the original are better off reading an authorized translation or nothing, rather than a bad one. FWIW, contents posted on mailing lists, unless written otherwise, are copyrighted, and we quote each other as a practical matter of fair use to make the conversation easy. Rarely do we repeat the previous contribution with changes. If one would do so, and misquote a person before replying, most attentive readers would denounce the fact as misleading, dishonest, unethical, or aggressive. Traduttore, traditore. == hk -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2 iQJ8BAEBCgBmBQJVPOXwXxSAAC4AKGlzc3Vlci1mcHJAbm90YXRpb25zLm9w ZW5wZ3AuZmlmdGhob3JzZW1hbi5uZXRFQ0IyNkIyRTNDNzEyMTc2OUEzNEM4ODU0 ODA2QzM2M0ZDMTg5ODNEAAoJEEgGw2P8GJg9DygP/3Ce6hdXp1umpcEh7rNoiPoR nWRP9DDi97UxiPu5fRucKVfNm3kpJBMm7cJGf7YBxw0VuM4MtcHpo4GX5fHfjoOM MfjOUBkcgKaGnz3tFSHzvZ6krKBSxNT9RJ0nv5CSCzI/3A7XTN9nQZr4+QW+8cXe EpM9PA7/EY+uQvji9yNfCZc8zDGFGGw7/OA552Y3j4cPYi8BF+7hbiURXzv861D+ 4LJqrxA9Bv1uvqWBiZp8V3Z1btkyslip83j5JVN4Kdn7QjVXJVg0glGNNKnUvqLn BNlL+MsyH7Ua3q46eJYtX4t+dmTQzTcm3KlNnTqwWMV3QDgBT8EPkrgdfhDnPzp8 UouthzNYvwUJ0vwrK+mel5fET24hFJAw4ccjyWOKsasP/XqkuRfiUefBTz3jFEFh jOPLhWfx+L7+OlTxJnlRCC3DWUHihQ4LE2hoYlU+YSZYxPHky/UIl5OadzgzUyUl K3bZ2rie3aJYyC45mNem/eelZNv5R5eTR50/1dqSGikUloh6aNlmidsgLEOrqMj7 KerpWzNoBEy0aWdXbRph5IWeU5cCrDf+AVafjjTxtqUiMxVQYpaLoIVi1H5Y2x6A OXavDYY9BEAPM0OhyTEGbNG4OKKvmejSObiX60pE47/miwxnV6B4K4rbOwf4U2Rm 0tRZwz7AZ9RjRjVSAnlk =ZsWX -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [libreplanet-discuss] The FSF Allows No Derivatives,
A dishonest person will lie about endorsement, so I don't see that as adequate protection against misrepresentation. Do you have a way to solve that problem? Is anyone outside of a big publisher really advocating, the bludgeon of completely blocking anything that lacks permission.? On Sunday 26 April 2015, Aaron Wolf wrote: It's reasonable enough to require that the translation be indicated as not an officially accepted translation versus requiring actual permission to publish any translation. ... Ideas are hampered and progress is limited when we fail to respect cultural freedom, and there are ways to address the other concerns about mis-translation than simply the bludgeon of completely blocking anything that lacks explicit permission.
Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Hello, and setting up a server
Server/Client is a false dichotomy designed to make you think of yourself as helpless and to make people afraid of sharing. Attaching any computer to a network opens that computer to attack but a person running a free software social network is safer than someone simply browsing with malicious software like Microsoft Windows which is already an ongoing security disaster. It should be no more difficult to provide high quality social network software with reasonable default settings than it is to provide desktop software and my own experience says that's true. I'm an ordinary user but I've been able to run server software for more than a decade without problems. http://50.80.140.55/photo_album/chron/desktop/gateway_index.html I have no security illusions. Skilled crackers could easily break my computers, but they can do that no matter what I run. The worst they can do is what software owners already do to non free software users - they can take over my computer, invade my privacy, keep me from being able to share, and otherwise use my computer against me and my neighbors. My best protection is the free software community and multiple backups of things I consider important. Make yourself a full citizen of the internet today! Share with your friends, family and strangers. Your computer can do it. On Saturday 25 April 2015, Jim Garrett wrote: Lots of inexperienced people running servers sounds like a large-scale security disaster waiting to happen. Is there any way this could be managed?
Re: [libreplanet-discuss] The FSF Allows No Derivatives,
On 04/27/15 02:51, rysiek wrote:
Maybe we could at least try to keep it civil on this list, please?
#$%^*(){ is %^$)(@^$%ing ^*()
Several years ago volunteers of an organisation I worked for translated the
following article:
http://ur1.ca/g5iwh
We reached out to FSF for permission to publish it; it has been ignored
completely.
I stipulate that the fact that this text has not been available to 40 million
Polish speakers worldwide may have been a larger net loss than potential for
misrepresentation/mistranslation.
What? Why do you need to translate that article? It would have been great if
you could, but FSF are not the sole distributors of such news. If you are
worried that forty million Polish reader were deprived of this information,
that's your fault. You were informed. You weren't handcuffed by this. You could
have written your own article! It isn't like you have to reverse engineer a
complex program to duplicate it, it's just a few paragraphs!
There is no clear distinction between works of opinion and the rest; as I
have argued before, a work of opinion can be used as a base for work of
art,
or an educational endaevour, or otherwise. This distinction is as artificial,
as it is harmful.
With the license, the distinction is as simple as placing the text into the
section licensed as immutable for the reason I say this is my opinion. So
what if it is educational? So what if it is art. What difference does it make?
I would be worried that this could be used as a loophole to lock away useful
information, except it can't. Even if you tried, I could simply copy or
paraphrase your text, put it in my mutably or immutably licensed text and say
its my opinion distinct from yours even it if says the same thing. What I can't
do is make a copy, change what it says, and say it's yours.
The ridiculousness of this thread is that there is no useful example of
exploitation of this clause. Its rhetorical nonsense.
The original purpose of immutable clauses in the GFDL is to prevent third
parties from removing the political and social commentary that the authors
added to explain why they started the project. And they were right, because
there were people who were just gagging to get rid of it. When they discovered
they couldn't, they were butthurt and ran off and invented open source. And
that's fine, too.
--
0xE1A91299.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
