Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Fwd: The FSF Allows No Derivatives]
On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 10:56 AM, Joshua Gay j...@fsf.org wrote: On 05/27/2015 10:16 AM, Aaron Wolf wrote: Yoni, I and others made very clear and practical points about why your decision to move away from CC-BY-SA is not good. Namely, you are incorrect that it allows people to misrepresent you. This is still not true. I will repeat my example with further detail added in to address your previous reply. I translate RMS's essays. I switch all instances where it says free software to say open source and adjust sentences accordingly. I then state on the cover of my book: This is the official and definitive translation of Richard Stallman's work. H. While I might be in compliance with a CC BY-SA license, my translation would still clearly be a misrepresentation of Stallman and his work. I'm no lawyer, but I can't possibly imagine that one would be in compliance with CC-BY-SA if one claimed that. Here's a bit from the summary of 4.0: Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/ And from the horse's mouth itself (emphasis mine): No endorsement. Nothing in this Public License constitutes or may be construed as permission to assert or imply that You are, or that Your use of the Licensed Material is, connected with, or sponsored, endorsed, OR GRANTED OFFICIAL STATUS by, the Licensor or others designated to receive attribution as provided in Section 3(a)(1)(A)(i). https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/legalcode Cheers, --R -- Robinson Tryon QA Engineer - The Document Foundation LibreOffice Community Outreach Herald qu...@libreoffice.org 802-379-9482 | IRC: colonelqubit on Freenode
Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Fwd: The FSF Allows No Derivatives]
On 05/29/2015 11:08 AM, Robinson Tryon wrote: On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 10:56 AM, Joshua Gay j...@fsf.org wrote: On 05/27/2015 10:16 AM, Aaron Wolf wrote: Yoni, I and others made very clear and practical points about why your decision to move away from CC-BY-SA is not good. Namely, you are incorrect that it allows people to misrepresent you. This is still not true. I will repeat my example with further detail added in to address your previous reply. I translate RMS's essays. I switch all instances where it says free software to say open source and adjust sentences accordingly. I then state on the cover of my book: This is the official and definitive translation of Richard Stallman's work. H. While I might be in compliance with a CC BY-SA license, my translation would still clearly be a misrepresentation of Stallman and his work. I'm no lawyer, but I can't possibly imagine that one would be in compliance with CC-BY-SA if one claimed that. Here's a bit from the summary of 4.0: Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/ And from the horse's mouth itself (emphasis mine): No endorsement. Nothing in this Public License constitutes or may be construed as permission to assert or imply that You are, or that Your use of the Licensed Material is, connected with, or sponsored, endorsed, OR GRANTED OFFICIAL STATUS by, the Licensor or others designated to receive attribution as provided in Section 3(a)(1)(A)(i). https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/legalcode What I wrote certainly does not state that Richard Stallman endorses the translation. It just says it is an official and definitive translation. Who says it is official is obviously me and not the original author. If I called it an authorized translation or a translation endorsed by the author, then that would seem like a violation of the license. -- Joshua Gay Licensing Compliance Manager http://www.fsf.org/licensing Free Software Foundationhttps://donate.fsf.org GPG key ID: 8DA625BBWhat's a GPG key ID? See our Email Self-Defense Guide: https://emailselfdefense.fsf.org
Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Fwd: The FSF Allows No Derivatives]
On 05/27/2015 10:16 AM, Aaron Wolf wrote: Yoni, I and others made very clear and practical points about why your decision to move away from CC-BY-SA is not good. Namely, you are incorrect that it allows people to misrepresent you. This is still not true. I will repeat my example with further detail added in to address your previous reply. I translate RMS's essays. I switch all instances where it says free software to say open source and adjust sentences accordingly. I then state on the cover of my book: This is the official and definitive translation of Richard Stallman's work. While I might be in compliance with a CC BY-SA license, my translation would still clearly be a misrepresentation of Stallman and his work. Josh -- Joshua Gay Licensing Compliance Manager http://www.fsf.org/licensing Free Software Foundationhttps://donate.fsf.org GPG key ID: 8DA625BBWhat's a GPG key ID? See our Email Self-Defense Guide: https://emailselfdefense.fsf.org
Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Fwd: The FSF Allows No Derivatives]
Josh, I think any court would judge that official translation definitely implies endorsement. Official means related to holding an office, being the owner, the person in position of authority. It is the same as saying authorized. Furthermore, there's also clause 3a1B: indicate if You modified the Licensed Material and retain an indication of any previous modifications; and clause 3a3: If requested by the Licensor, You must remove any of the information required by Section 3(a)(1)(A) to the extent reasonably practicable. In other words, RMS could say I do not approve of this translation, so not only do I want all endorsements or implications of endorsements removed, I want my *name* removed from this. And refusing to do so would be a violation of the license. Thus, it is *certainly* a violation of the license to misrepresent RMS, i.e. to put words in his mouth and claim that they are his exact words. The result is that CC-BY-SA allows someone to translate RMS and change free software to the equivalent of open source but *not* to state that this is the unmodified authentic writings of RMS. RMS retains the power to have his name disassociated entirely. Cheers, Aaron On 05/29/2015 09:52 AM, Joshua Gay wrote: On 05/29/2015 11:08 AM, Robinson Tryon wrote: On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 10:56 AM, Joshua Gay j...@fsf.org wrote: On 05/27/2015 10:16 AM, Aaron Wolf wrote: Yoni, I and others made very clear and practical points about why your decision to move away from CC-BY-SA is not good. Namely, you are incorrect that it allows people to misrepresent you. This is still not true. I will repeat my example with further detail added in to address your previous reply. I translate RMS's essays. I switch all instances where it says free software to say open source and adjust sentences accordingly. I then state on the cover of my book: This is the official and definitive translation of Richard Stallman's work. H. While I might be in compliance with a CC BY-SA license, my translation would still clearly be a misrepresentation of Stallman and his work. I'm no lawyer, but I can't possibly imagine that one would be in compliance with CC-BY-SA if one claimed that. Here's a bit from the summary of 4.0: Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/ And from the horse's mouth itself (emphasis mine): No endorsement. Nothing in this Public License constitutes or may be construed as permission to assert or imply that You are, or that Your use of the Licensed Material is, connected with, or sponsored, endorsed, OR GRANTED OFFICIAL STATUS by, the Licensor or others designated to receive attribution as provided in Section 3(a)(1)(A)(i). https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/legalcode What I wrote certainly does not state that Richard Stallman endorses the translation. It just says it is an official and definitive translation. Who says it is official is obviously me and not the original author. If I called it an authorized translation or a translation endorsed by the author, then that would seem like a violation of the license. -- Aaron Wolf co-founder, Snowdrift.coop music teacher, wolftune.com
Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Fwd: The FSF Allows No Derivatives]
On 28/05/2015 14:41, Logan Streondj wrote: Also, the evolution of language and Shakespeare etc. is a false argument because, while it is a long time, 70 years after author's death is not enough time for language to evolve that greatly. It does make older works have a different character, but not the extreme level you were implying. We still, in principle, have a time when all works will be public domain. yes, that is correct, I forgot about copyright expiration. There is copyright expiration regarding money (and that's less to less true regarding Mickey Mouse's act), There is no copyright expiration regarding moral rights. That's practical to keep intact a work until language has so evolved that a work is not understandable. Fortunately, while human beings has the rights during generations, there were nobody to claim 10 hundred years later. Unfortunately, it will not applies soon because of tracability. And more, with DRM, no one would soon have a working unscrambled copy at time except (*with chance*, if still exists) the copyright holder. (France situation). Best regards, TSFH.
Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Fwd: The FSF Allows No Derivatives]
On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 07:24:14AM -0700, Aaron Wolf wrote: Logan, I don't think your reply helps the cause for promoting free culture here. Yoni's argument about computers are all the same and people are different may be technically untrue, but the reason it is a bad argument is because even if it *were* true, it is not a basis for supporting ND. Derivative works don't deny the original author's original work. Yoni's conclusion doesn't follow even *if* his premise were true, so in this case, it doesn't help to attack the premise because that tacitly accepts the logic of the argument. yes, you are correct that her/his argument doesn't stand in either case. I just had to respond since the humans are better than all else in creation thinking, could lead to some horrific consequences, including the destruction of the environment, and the Artilect War. Also, the evolution of language and Shakespeare etc. is a false argument because, while it is a long time, 70 years after author's death is not enough time for language to evolve that greatly. It does make older works have a different character, but not the extreme level you were implying. We still, in principle, have a time when all works will be public domain. yes, that is correct, I forgot about copyright expiration.
Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Fwd: The FSF Allows No Derivatives]
On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 07:09:50PM -0400, Yoni Rabkin wrote: Software runs the same on every equivalent computer. Computers are not unique; I have to disagree with you there, computers are in fact unique, as unique as any physical thing, you will never find a rock that is idential to another rock, nor a computer that is idential to another one. At the very least, the MAC address is different, but in detail, the contents of each chip is also different, since with the fine-grained architectures nowadays there are various fail-safes since it's expected there will be some failures in each chip, so they are re-routed in various ways. on top of that, there are different instruction-set architectures, drivers, appendages. one loaded with the same software is as good as another. This isn't true of people because people are unique. Just because a lot of computers have the same belief system, i.e. Linux, doesn't mean they are the same. that would be like saying all christian people are the same, disregarding that there are many distributions/denominations, and that each person/computer has their own packages and idiosynchrasy. also same exact software on a different computer, can still give you different results, because of speed, drivers, dust, etc. These unique personal opinions of people matter and deserve to be heard and preserved as a unique representation of an unique individual; a human voice. To reflect this, I will be moving my personal blog from CC-BY-SA to a BY-ND license, namely: [https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/] well I guess self-neutering is a personal choice. if it has an ND license then it can only be heard for a short period of time, the time frame in which people still speak that particular dialect, after that only learnde scholarans, that specialize in archaic forms of speech would be able to read it, such as those that fluently read chaucer or even shakespeare in the original.
Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Fwd: The FSF Allows No Derivatives]
On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 07:09:50PM -0400, Yoni Rabkin wrote: Software runs the same on every equivalent computer. Computers are not unique; I have to disagree with you there, computers are in fact unique, as unique as any physical thing, you will never find a rock that is idential to another rock, nor a computer that is idential to another one. At the very least, the MAC address is different, but in detail, the contents of each chip is also different, since with the fine-grained architectures nowadays there are various fail-safes since it's expected there will be some failures in each chip, so they are re-routed in various ways. on top of that, there are different instruction-set architectures, drivers, appendages. one loaded with the same software is as good as another. This isn't true of people because people are unique. Just because a lot of computers have the same belief system, i.e. Linux, doesn't mean they are the same. that would be like saying all christian people are the same, disregarding that there are many distributions/denominations, and that each person/computer has their own packages and idiosynchrasy. also same exact software on a different computer, can still give you different results, because of speed, drivers, dust, etc. Drawing an equivalent of any sort between machines, which are lifeless manufactured objects, and human beings, and attempting to say that those objects are as unique as humans is ethically wrong. This is called dehumanizing, and is the source of much trouble. Please don't do that. I truly hope (no cynicism in my words here) that nobody will ever treat you or anyone you love the same way as a lifeless object, or even try to claim that you are like one in order to justify less than humane behavior. Each person is a world onto themselves; this is why life is precious. If torturing reality to this extent is what is necessary to make the CC-BY-SA argument I can't continue the conversation from this point. Sorry. I don't mind trying other avenues of conversation, but not one based on dehumanizing my neighbors. -- Cut your own wood and it will warm you twice
Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Fwd: The FSF Allows No Derivatives,]
- Forwarded message from Logan Streondj streo...@gmail.com - Date: Wed, 27 May 2015 06:36:09 -0400 From: Logan Streondj streo...@gmail.com To: a...@richmond.ml Subject: Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Fwd: The FSF Allows No Derivatives, User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 09:16:12PM +0100, Andrés Muñiz Piniella wrote: There are, also, too many others who know only Open Source. We need to let people know about philosophy behind the GNU Project, without misrepresentation. If the Bible had an ND clause, then it would have never gotten past Judaism, and may have been lost to even Hebrews after the diaspora, when many of them forgot how to speak Hebrew. Sure maybe there was some risk in translating the bible to Greek, Latin, or English, but it did make it more accessible, by now, most people in the world know about it, it having been translated to 6,000+ languages. Not going one way or the other here but... I feel it is better example is to use the Greek Philosophy that was lost in original language but was saved thanks to the arab thirst for knowledge in the (not so dark for some) middle ages [1]. Still today (or at least 12 years ago), Nicomacean Ethics[citation needed] has some editions that do not express the true meaning the true meaning is different for each person, it depends entirely on what that person understood of the text. Yes, it's true, I've recently experienced, that people can misunderstand, even when translating from English to English, still I am happy to see such imperfect copies, in some ways they are better, perhaps easier for others to undestand. because they go from original Arab language to language A and later to language B and finally language C. If you leave it in public domain (with freedom distribution) this kind of thing happens, I guess. Rather than directly from Arab language where one would guess is closer to the original meaning. the nice part is, that someone can read a more accessible watered down version, such as which may be taught in a course, and if they are really curious they can go back and read the original, or something closer to the original. The increased number of versions of it, simply means that more different people could read and understand it. There are many dialects of even English, publishing it in a different dialect, could help make it less intimidating for new users. for instance when one of my recent works was translated the user was having trouble particularly with technical jargon terms, so I helped clarify what they meant in a more colloquial register. Though I'm assuming it is pretty much hopeless to attempt to have GNU stuff translated at this point, likely we'll simply have to open a GNU alternative which has Libre propoganda, in addition to Libre software. We could even have Sane mailing lists, which reply to the mailing list, instead of just one person. Anthropologists could look back at this curious time in history, where people DIDN't want their ideas to reproduce, or limited them to cloning. Like a memetic primordial ooze. :-) [1] sorry, no reference as I am only working from memory of what my ethics teacher told me 12 years ago. I could have miss understood it and I am transtating from my spanish memory. -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. - End forwarded message -
Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Fwd: The FSF Allows No Derivatives]
According to those who would apply the GNU GPL to software and ND to opinion, I wonder which license I should (ideally) use to write software that expresses opinion. On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 9:01 AM, Aaron Wolf wolft...@riseup.net wrote: On 05/27/2015 07:48 AM, Yoni Rabkin wrote: choosing to make personal opinions immutable That's not what ND does. ND stops other people from doing creative things that draw upon your work. Your personal opinions are yours alone regardless of any of this. Nobody else can change them. I have yet to see a practical discussion about a specific one of those pieces, a different license, and what the community would gain (outside of the general principles and the general argument, which has been revisited many times over thus far.) Then you haven't been reading. One of the most valuable and important derivative works already made of Richard's stuff is a video that cuts out longer pauses so his speech is a better and shorter thing to view. That's a violation of ND. Another thing mentioned was change of medium, such as someone using Richard's text unchanged in a video about software freedom. Emphasis has been made about translations. LICENSE INCOMPATIBILITY! Anyway, ND is an anti-Wikipedia and ant-commons license. It's frankly *impossible* for Richard to both keep ND terms and *grant* someone permission to use his writing in a very respectful, completely accurate way when mixed with CC-BY-SA material. For example, I might take your blog writings, Richard's writings, and some wonderful CC-BY-SA artwork and music and create a video promoting software freedom. Well, that's illegal. Why? Maybe Richard thinks my use of his *unaltered* words is perfectly fine… but I *have* to license my video as CC-BY-SA because that is the SA part of respecting everyone else's contributions to the commons. I cannot make a video that says This is CC-BY-SA, except for that text, that stuff is ND, which means if you make a derivative of this video, you can't include that text without Richard's permission because that would violate the terms from the musician whose music is being played in the background. This incompatibility means that even derivatives that authors *like* can't happen. There's a ton of compelling arguments about why ND is wrong, and I've posted links to other articles and resources about this. Nobody defending ND has actually addressed any of these points or made any substantive arguments actually showing why ND helps anything. I'd be happy to discuss or address those points if they exist.
Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Fwd: The FSF Allows No Derivatives]
Logan, I don't think your reply helps the cause for promoting free culture here. Yoni's argument about computers are all the same and people are different may be technically untrue, but the reason it is a bad argument is because even if it *were* true, it is not a basis for supporting ND. Derivative works don't deny the original author's original work. Yoni's conclusion doesn't follow even *if* his premise were true, so in this case, it doesn't help to attack the premise because that tacitly accepts the logic of the argument. Also, the evolution of language and Shakespeare etc. is a false argument because, while it is a long time, 70 years after author's death is not enough time for language to evolve that greatly. It does make older works have a different character, but not the extreme level you were implying. We still, in principle, have a time when all works will be public domain. On 05/27/2015 03:58 AM, Logan Streondj wrote: On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 07:09:50PM -0400, Yoni Rabkin wrote: Software runs the same on every equivalent computer. Computers are not unique; I have to disagree with you there, computers are in fact unique, as unique as any physical thing, you will never find a rock that is idential to another rock, nor a computer that is idential to another one. At the very least, the MAC address is different, but in detail, the contents of each chip is also different, since with the fine-grained architectures nowadays there are various fail-safes since it's expected there will be some failures in each chip, so they are re-routed in various ways. on top of that, there are different instruction-set architectures, drivers, appendages. one loaded with the same software is as good as another. This isn't true of people because people are unique. Just because a lot of computers have the same belief system, i.e. Linux, doesn't mean they are the same. that would be like saying all christian people are the same, disregarding that there are many distributions/denominations, and that each person/computer has their own packages and idiosynchrasy. also same exact software on a different computer, can still give you different results, because of speed, drivers, dust, etc. These unique personal opinions of people matter and deserve to be heard and preserved as a unique representation of an unique individual; a human voice. To reflect this, I will be moving my personal blog from CC-BY-SA to a BY-ND license, namely: [https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/] well I guess self-neutering is a personal choice. if it has an ND license then it can only be heard for a short period of time, the time frame in which people still speak that particular dialect, after that only learnde scholarans, that specialize in archaic forms of speech would be able to read it, such as those that fluently read chaucer or even shakespeare in the original. -- Aaron Wolf co-founder, Snowdrift.coop music teacher, wolftune.com
Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Fwd: The FSF Allows No Derivatives]
On 05/27/2015 07:48 AM, Yoni Rabkin wrote: choosing to make personal opinions immutable That's not what ND does. ND stops other people from doing creative things that draw upon your work. Your personal opinions are yours alone regardless of any of this. Nobody else can change them. I have yet to see a practical discussion about a specific one of those pieces, a different license, and what the community would gain (outside of the general principles and the general argument, which has been revisited many times over thus far.) Then you haven't been reading. One of the most valuable and important derivative works already made of Richard's stuff is a video that cuts out longer pauses so his speech is a better and shorter thing to view. That's a violation of ND. Another thing mentioned was change of medium, such as someone using Richard's text unchanged in a video about software freedom. Emphasis has been made about translations. LICENSE INCOMPATIBILITY! Anyway, ND is an anti-Wikipedia and ant-commons license. It's frankly *impossible* for Richard to both keep ND terms and *grant* someone permission to use his writing in a very respectful, completely accurate way when mixed with CC-BY-SA material. For example, I might take your blog writings, Richard's writings, and some wonderful CC-BY-SA artwork and music and create a video promoting software freedom. Well, that's illegal. Why? Maybe Richard thinks my use of his *unaltered* words is perfectly fine… but I *have* to license my video as CC-BY-SA because that is the SA part of respecting everyone else's contributions to the commons. I cannot make a video that says This is CC-BY-SA, except for that text, that stuff is ND, which means if you make a derivative of this video, you can't include that text without Richard's permission because that would violate the terms from the musician whose music is being played in the background. This incompatibility means that even derivatives that authors *like* can't happen. There's a ton of compelling arguments about why ND is wrong, and I've posted links to other articles and resources about this. Nobody defending ND has actually addressed any of these points or made any substantive arguments actually showing why ND helps anything. I'd be happy to discuss or address those points if they exist.
Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Fwd: The FSF Allows No Derivatives]
Yoni, I and others made very clear and practical points about why your decision to move away from CC-BY-SA is not good. Namely, you are incorrect that it allows people to misrepresent you. Instead, what it allows is for people to represent their *own* views *alongside* yours in ways that draw on your work directly. I'm happy for that to happen with my work, and it does not detract from my own personal expression (and I'm as strong a believer in wanting my OWN personal expression as anyone). It would be extremely sloppy for you to use Logan's lousy argument as an excuse to justify your conclusions. That would be ignoring reasonable arguments, cherry-picking ones you don't like, and then asserting that you are correct because you can point to a bad argument against you. But that ignores whether your argument is valid or whether there are good arguments against your points. On 05/27/2015 04:26 AM, Yoni Rabkin wrote: On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 07:09:50PM -0400, Yoni Rabkin wrote: Software runs the same on every equivalent computer. Computers are not unique; I have to disagree with you there, computers are in fact unique, as unique as any physical thing, you will never find a rock that is idential to another rock, nor a computer that is idential to another one. At the very least, the MAC address is different, but in detail, the contents of each chip is also different, since with the fine-grained architectures nowadays there are various fail-safes since it's expected there will be some failures in each chip, so they are re-routed in various ways. on top of that, there are different instruction-set architectures, drivers, appendages. one loaded with the same software is as good as another. This isn't true of people because people are unique. Just because a lot of computers have the same belief system, i.e. Linux, doesn't mean they are the same. that would be like saying all christian people are the same, disregarding that there are many distributions/denominations, and that each person/computer has their own packages and idiosynchrasy. also same exact software on a different computer, can still give you different results, because of speed, drivers, dust, etc. Drawing an equivalent of any sort between machines, which are lifeless manufactured objects, and human beings, and attempting to say that those objects are as unique as humans is ethically wrong. This is called dehumanizing, and is the source of much trouble. Please don't do that. I truly hope (no cynicism in my words here) that nobody will ever treat you or anyone you love the same way as a lifeless object, or even try to claim that you are like one in order to justify less than humane behavior. Each person is a world onto themselves; this is why life is precious. If torturing reality to this extent is what is necessary to make the CC-BY-SA argument I can't continue the conversation from this point. Sorry. I don't mind trying other avenues of conversation, but not one based on dehumanizing my neighbors. -- Aaron Wolf co-founder, Snowdrift.coop music teacher, wolftune.com
Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Fwd: The FSF Allows No Derivatives]
Yoni, I and others made very clear and practical points about why your decision to move away from CC-BY-SA is not good. I can't imagine how you would know that with such certainty. Namely, you are incorrect that it allows people to misrepresent you. Instead, what it allows is for people to represent their *own* views *alongside* yours in ways that draw on your work directly. I'm happy for that to happen with my work, and it does not detract from my own personal expression (and I'm as strong a believer in wanting my OWN personal expression as anyone). I'm not worried about being misrepresented, and I strongly support CC-BY-SA for anything useful. Finally, I'm sure that there is even use in licensing personal opinions under CC-BY-SA; I don't think that's wrong. I'm pointing out that in my view, choosing to make personal opinions immutable is an acceptable choice, and that I understand and appreciate why the FSF has made this choice. This isn't to say that I don't think that there may be some of the FSF opinion pieces which can be licensed differently to everyone's advantage. But I have yet to see a practical discussion about a specific one of those pieces, a different license, and what the community would gain (outside of the general principles and the general argument, which has been revisited many times over thus far.) It would be extremely sloppy for you to use Logan's lousy argument as an excuse to justify your conclusions. That would be ignoring reasonable arguments, cherry-picking ones you don't like, and then asserting that you are correct because you can point to a bad argument against you. But that ignores whether your argument is valid or whether there are good arguments against your points. No worries, I explicitly wrote that I'm happy to continue the discussion on different avenues, just not down the one Logan opened: I don't mind trying other avenues of conversation, but not one based on dehumanizing my neighbors. On 05/27/2015 04:26 AM, Yoni Rabkin wrote: On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 07:09:50PM -0400, Yoni Rabkin wrote: Software runs the same on every equivalent computer. Computers are not unique; I have to disagree with you there, computers are in fact unique, as unique as any physical thing, you will never find a rock that is idential to another rock, nor a computer that is idential to another one. At the very least, the MAC address is different, but in detail, the contents of each chip is also different, since with the fine-grained architectures nowadays there are various fail-safes since it's expected there will be some failures in each chip, so they are re-routed in various ways. on top of that, there are different instruction-set architectures, drivers, appendages. one loaded with the same software is as good as another. This isn't true of people because people are unique. Just because a lot of computers have the same belief system, i.e. Linux, doesn't mean they are the same. that would be like saying all christian people are the same, disregarding that there are many distributions/denominations, and that each person/computer has their own packages and idiosynchrasy. also same exact software on a different computer, can still give you different results, because of speed, drivers, dust, etc. Drawing an equivalent of any sort between machines, which are lifeless manufactured objects, and human beings, and attempting to say that those objects are as unique as humans is ethically wrong. This is called dehumanizing, and is the source of much trouble. Please don't do that. I truly hope (no cynicism in my words here) that nobody will ever treat you or anyone you love the same way as a lifeless object, or even try to claim that you are like one in order to justify less than humane behavior. Each person is a world onto themselves; this is why life is precious. If torturing reality to this extent is what is necessary to make the CC-BY-SA argument I can't continue the conversation from this point. Sorry. I don't mind trying other avenues of conversation, but not one based on dehumanizing my neighbors. -- Cut your own wood and it will warm you twice
Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Fwd: The FSF Allows No Derivatives
Dnia sobota, 16 maja 2015 00:30:07 Will Hill pisze: Your problem seems to be copyright wielded by a rapacious publishing industry. What does that have to do with Richard Stallman saying ND is appropriate for works of opinion, or translation? Rules should be the same for everybody. If it's not okay for entity/person A to wield copyright against somebody, it's not okay for entity/person B to do so either. Another problem here is that I do not find the distintion between works of opinion and works of art meaningful. A work of opinion can become a work of art by simply changing the context -- and -ND is blind to this. Hence, it blocks culture. GNU is not keeping you from writing great music texts. If Richard Stallman was magically in charge of laws tomorrow, I think you would get your chance to write textbooks. Again, the JSONPL example, already quoted in this thread, comes to mind. The JSON Publi License stated that software can be used for good, not evil. You could have made an identical argument there -- the author of the software would not stop you from writing great software, right? Still, FSF considers JSONPL not a free/libre license, and rightfully so. As the problem is: who defines what is good, and what is evil? Freedom is the important part in case of free software, and so it should be in case of texts about it. Can you imagine a clause similar to -ND in a free software license? Of course not, that would make software non-free. -- 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] Fwd: The FSF Allows No Derivatives
Dnia sobota, 16 maja 2015 10:36:16 Will Hill pisze: I have repeatedly pointed to software owner's attempts to smear and misrepresent free software advocates and said that this is a good reason to have ND. It gives us the power to take down the most offensive misrepresentations of opinion. Yes, there are many other ways software owners lie and confuse people about free software but having this one power is helpful. Current law also does nothing to prevent that fraud. People have argued that things will work out better over all if we could provide modified works of opinion, but no one has shown me any studdies that prove it. I don't think removing unintentional pauses, changing camera angles, or providing a good faith transcript are violations of ND terms. They are. The license states quite clearly: *no derivatives*. Full stop. Ask a lawyer if you're unsure. Fair use should cover quotes well enough so that this is not an issue. It does. It does not cover translations, for instance. There are many RMS quote collections, for example. I don't think anyone will request those are taken down. But if somebody takes RMS's text and makes a song out of it, this can be taken down. And the question is not would RMS take it down, but should such a thing be possible to take down at all. -- 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] Fwd: The FSF Allows No Derivatives
Dnia sobota, 16 maja 2015 10:47:44 Will Hill pisze: If the context is clear enough the change is transformative, isn't it? It's not. The problem is with enough. As always, border cases are where the problem lies, and they are not easy to solve. We can tell the difference between a propaganda site and a professor making class material in good faith or an artist making a painting. Would anyone have a problem with that? I, for one. As that leaves much to large a field for interpretation, and since we're in free speech and civil rights area, this is indeed a problem. In the 1960', most of what dr King was saying would be treated as black propaganda, for instance. The only solution is to have as clear and unequivocal rules and laws, as possible. Also, I really insist on you answering the question I have asked: can you make such a strong distinction between texts that are works of art and those that are wokrs of opinion. FSF's stance on -ND hinges on that distinction being possible to make. I do note, however, that in you're statement quoted above you put both a work of art (painting) and a work of opinion (class material) together, as opposed to another work of opinion (propaganda site). This seems to suggest that the distinction should be somewhere else than between works of opinion and works of art. -- 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] Fwd: The FSF Allows No Derivatives
Dnia sobota, 16 maja 2015 09:51:44 Aaron Wolf pisze: I agree with you Will. There is no justification for the law gives me a choice, therefore, respect my choice. No. I am perfectly free (legally and morally) to think whatever about someone's choices. And when someone's choices are harmful to the world, we can and should attack those choices. Proprietary software developers do not *deserve* the choice to be proprietary. Proprietary software ought not exist. Thing is, -ND is a similar imposition. Hence the whole thread. ;) -- 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] Fwd: The FSF Allows No Derivatives
Dnia poniedziałek, 18 maja 2015 11:16:37 Joshua Gay pisze: On 05/16/2015 01:44 AM, Aaron Wolf wrote: But this is all tangential. You and others have failed to provide any reasonable justification for RMS' use of ND other than an ill-founded claim that it actually helps avoid misrepresentation. I've pointed out that misrepresentation is possible regardless and that CC has a clause that requires modified versions to be marked as modified. Furthermore, plagiarism and misrepresentation are fraudulent regardless of copyright law. A statement in a licensing clause that states: this work has been extremely accurately translated from the original French of the author into English, I believe, would suffice to comply with CC BY 4.0 condition that you must indicate if changes were made. So imagine if someone used that sort of statement for a CC BY version of an RMS essay but in the work they created they translated the term free software in one language to the phrase open source software in another. I think it would be fair to say that this is a misrepresentation of RMS's original work (not just the ideas) because it would not be accurate to call it an extremely accurate translation, even if in doing so one complies with the license. Yes. That's why that would fall under *fraud* laws, as: 1. misrepresenting somebody's opinion is illegal regardless of the license 2. the statement about extremely accurate translation is patently false. How does -ND help here? -- 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] Fwd: The FSF Allows No Derivatives
Dnia poniedziałek, 18 maja 2015 19:41:46 Thomas HARDING pisze: On 18/05/2015 17:23, Aaron Wolf wrote: The point isn't that CC-BY or CC-BY-SA are impossible to misrepresent nor that the mark as modified clause is a foolproof block of misrepresentation. The point is that ND itself is not a foolproof block of misrepresentation. And since there's little (no?) evidence of it being helpful in reality… There are other alternatives for authenticity. The ideal approach is to have an official version, i.e. an *endorsed* version. [my English expression is one of the worst around the world] The raising problem in that thread is: FSF is unresponsive regarding any attempt to endorse any translation nor any derivative work, such as educational material. In fact, FSF office lacks of employees. There were only one person accounted on propaganda duty. So instead of giving that person *more work* and making it harder to disseminate FSF ideas, why not release the texts under CC By-SA, and instead provide a simple mechanism for people to ask for *endorsement* if they want/need it (or, indeed, provide endorsement for translations FSF finds and decides are good enough)? Seems like a good deal to me. -- 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] Fwd: The FSF Allows No Derivatives
Dnia poniedziałek, 25 maja 2015 19:09:50 Yoni Rabkin pisze: What I've heard so far are compelling arguments for both sides of the general principle. What I haven't heard is a specific reason why the FSF should change the license on a particular page. Translations have been mentioned, but those already exist on the FSF pages. And I've personally downloaded a copy of the fsf site from its version control system, made modifications, and sent patches which have been applied, so I can't say I've met any other issues with modifying the site either. On a personal note, reading all of this has helped me focus my thinking on this issue. Specifically: Software runs the same on every equivalent computer. Computers are not unique; one loaded with the same software is as good as another. This isn't true of people because people are unique. These unique personal opinions of people matter and deserve to be heard and preserved as a unique representation of an unique individual; a human voice. To reflect this, I will be moving my personal blog from CC-BY-SA to a BY-ND license, namely: [https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/] That is a sad conclusion. Specifically because it is false -- copyright protects your right for a unique representation of your individual thought regardless of license you choose to release it under. As has been discussed here in this thread many, many times. -- 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] Fwd: The FSF Allows No Derivatives,
On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 12:15:42AM -0500, Will Hill wrote: I suppose the easiest way to demonstrate the misrepresentation is to ask an IT person about the FSF. If you can't remember your own surprise on first reading actual GNU and FSF material, It was over a decade ago. you will probably be surprised by the average IT person's skewed perceptions. They are likely to tell you some confused things about Open Source, freeware, hobbiest, etc. don't know any such IT people. The general public is even less well informed. The last thing you might hear is a clear understanding of the power non free software has over users and what it takes to undo that. I have met people who didn't know about Linux and Libreware, generally those who aren't particularly computer literate. This problem of misrepresentation is not unique to free software. Rich and powerful people devote significant resources to confusing the public about all sorts of things. that sounds like a conspiracy theory, and not very relevant. the only pseudo-relevant rich people here would be Microsoft. so far, haven't seen any other examples. On Friday 22 May 2015, streo...@gmail.com wrote: will hill easy to observe pattern of publishers missrepresenting GNU and the FSF by all means at their disposal
Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Fwd: The FSF Allows No Derivatives,
You don't *asterisk* need to make a *asterisk* derivative work from nd sources. Just write an *asterisk* original work about it. This is *asterisk* actually what the FSF and GNU ppl want you to do. They do *asterisk* not want to be the central source for all things free, either. Just say it in your own *asterisk* words! On 05/25/2015 05:18 PM, Aaron Wolf wrote: And the ND clause helps this HOW? I think ND is *hurting* our cause and *increasing* the misrepresentation by discouraging some amount of positive derivative works that are *aligned* with FSF values. On 05/24/2015 10:15 PM, Will Hill wrote: I suppose the easiest way to demonstrate the misrepresentation is to ask an IT person about the FSF. If you can't remember your own surprise on first reading actual GNU and FSF material, you will probably be surprised by the average IT person's skewed perceptions. They are likely to tell you some confused things about Open Source, freeware, hobbiest, etc. The general public is even less well informed. The last thing you might hear is a clear understanding of the power non free software has over users and what it takes to undo that. This problem of misrepresentation is not unique to free software. Rich and powerful people devote significant resources to confusing the public about all sorts of things. On Friday 22 May 2015, streo...@gmail.com wrote: will hill easy to observe pattern of publishers missrepresenting GNU and the FSF by all means at their disposal -- 0xE1A91299.asc Description: application/pgp-keys signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Fwd: The FSF Allows No Derivatives,
Will is right. There are too many people (IT and not) that don't know what Free Software is. There are, also, too many others who know only Open Source. We need to let people know about philosophy behind the GNU Project, without misrepresentation. that sounds like a conspiracy theory, and not very relevant. the only pseudo-relevant rich people here would be Microsoft. so far, haven't seen any other examples. I think he was talking in general, not only about computer world. And he's right. Misrepresenting is a weapon that powerful people use to take some kind of advantage (in politics, for instance). -- Giuseppe Molica Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? - Juvenal
Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Fwd: The FSF Allows No Derivatives,
so having translation of the original rhetoric in other languages and dialects would certainly help increase the number of people that know about Libre Software. Though is not possible due to ND clause. But it is still possible write an original article about Libre Software. I can explain it in italian, using my own words; who wants to know more, is free to read the original RMS's points of view. If the Bible had an ND clause, then it would have never gotten past Judaism, and may have been lost to even Hebrews after the diaspora, when many of them forgot how to speak Hebrew. Sure maybe there was some risk in translating the bible to Greek, Latin, or English, but it did make it more accessible, by now, most people in the world know about it, it having been translated to 6,000+ languages. people that misrepresented the teachings were typically labeled heretics, and at the very least ostricised due to it. Still I think the world has benefited, even from some heretical perspectives, such as the holocentric world view. I think that it's a different situation. However, how can we be sure that what is written in the Bible is totally true? We can't. For instance, we have not a paper made by Jesus, but we can only read what others wrote about him. So, it's not the same problem that we have here. And Bible isn't a political essay. In any case, they aren't plagirising an opinion piece, they are fabricating a skewed perspective. Yes, but we all know that misrepresenting someone's point of view is the easier way to damage him. -- Giuseppe Molica Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? - Juvenal
Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Fwd: The FSF Allows No Derivatives,
On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 02:56:57PM +0200, Giuseppe Molica wrote: Will is right. There are too many people (IT and not) that don't know what Free Software is. so having translation of the original rhetoric in other languages and dialects would certainly help increase the number of people that know about Libre Software. Though is not possible due to ND clause. There are, also, too many others who know only Open Source. We need to let people know about philosophy behind the GNU Project, without misrepresentation. If the Bible had an ND clause, then it would have never gotten past Judaism, and may have been lost to even Hebrews after the diaspora, when many of them forgot how to speak Hebrew. Sure maybe there was some risk in translating the bible to Greek, Latin, or English, but it did make it more accessible, by now, most people in the world know about it, it having been translated to 6,000+ languages. people that misrepresented the teachings were typically labeled heretics, and at the very least ostricised due to it. Still I think the world has benefited, even from some heretical perspectives, such as the holocentric world view. that sounds like a conspiracy theory, and not very relevant. the only pseudo-relevant rich people here would be Microsoft. so far, haven't seen any other examples. I think he was talking in general, not only about computer world. And he's right. Misrepresenting is a weapon that powerful people use to take some kind of advantage (in politics, for instance). Sure, like when the top 1% blames the bottom 40% for being on welfare, when the top 1% has over 170 times the wealth of the bottom 40%. Sure, that is misrepresentation, and can be confusing. In America there are lots of people that believe it is the poor that is taking their money, willing to attack them, shame them, and be otherwise be very mean, even if all the poor (bottom 40%) combined only have 0.2% of the countries wealth, vs the 34%+ of the wealth which the top 1% have. In any case, they aren't plagirising an opinion piece, they are fabricating a skewed perspective. -- Giuseppe Molica Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? - Juvenal Logan
Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Fwd: The FSF Allows No Derivatives,
Wikipedia or a software are not political (or ideological) articles. If I write what I think about something it's MY point of view, not a technical essay. If you misrepresent what I wrote (intentionally or not), you can damage me, and let that people think about me something that it's not true. IMHO, misrepresentation is a risk too dangerous for our community. -- Giuseppe Molica Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? - Juvenal
Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Fwd: The FSF Allows No Derivatives,
On 05/25/2015 01:39 PM, Giuseppe Molica wrote: Wikipedia or a software are not political (or ideological) articles. If I write what I think about something it's MY point of view, not a technical essay. If you misrepresent what I wrote (intentionally or not), you can damage me, and let that people think about me something that it's not true. IMHO, misrepresentation is a risk too dangerous for our community. And… we still face the misrepresentation risk anyway, because ND doesn't stop misrepresentation. So, your argument is non sequitur. You haven't made any case that ND actually reduces damage here besides just claiming so and repeating yourself. -- Aaron Wolf co-founder, Snowdrift.coop music teacher, wolftune.com
Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Fwd: The FSF Allows No Derivatives
What I've heard so far are compelling arguments for both sides of the general principle. What I haven't heard is a specific reason why the FSF should change the license on a particular page. Translations have been mentioned, but those already exist on the FSF pages. And I've personally downloaded a copy of the fsf site from its version control system, made modifications, and sent patches which have been applied, so I can't say I've met any other issues with modifying the site either. On a personal note, reading all of this has helped me focus my thinking on this issue. Specifically: Software runs the same on every equivalent computer. Computers are not unique; one loaded with the same software is as good as another. This isn't true of people because people are unique. These unique personal opinions of people matter and deserve to be heard and preserved as a unique representation of an unique individual; a human voice. To reflect this, I will be moving my personal blog from CC-BY-SA to a BY-ND license, namely: [https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/] -- Cut your own wood and it will warm you twice
Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Fwd: The FSF Allows No Derivatives,
And the ND clause helps this HOW? I think ND is *hurting* our cause and *increasing* the misrepresentation by discouraging some amount of positive derivative works that are *aligned* with FSF values. On 05/24/2015 10:15 PM, Will Hill wrote: I suppose the easiest way to demonstrate the misrepresentation is to ask an IT person about the FSF. If you can't remember your own surprise on first reading actual GNU and FSF material, you will probably be surprised by the average IT person's skewed perceptions. They are likely to tell you some confused things about Open Source, freeware, hobbiest, etc. The general public is even less well informed. The last thing you might hear is a clear understanding of the power non free software has over users and what it takes to undo that. This problem of misrepresentation is not unique to free software. Rich and powerful people devote significant resources to confusing the public about all sorts of things. On Friday 22 May 2015, streo...@gmail.com wrote: will hill easy to observe pattern of publishers missrepresenting GNU and the FSF by all means at their disposal -- Aaron Wolf co-founder, Snowdrift.coop music teacher, wolftune.com
Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Fwd: The FSF Allows No Derivatives,
sorry same old reply-all issues again, accidentaly doubled one due to confusion. here is my recent response to will hill -- Forwarded message -- From: Logan Streondj streo...@gmail.com Date: Sat, May 23, 2015 at 4:18 PM Subject: Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Fwd: The FSF Allows No Derivatives, To: Will Hill will.hillno...@gmail.com On Sat, May 23, 2015 at 01:27:05AM -0500, Will Hill wrote: You might remember the RMS is a sexist fiasco, where all sorts of articles poured out misrepresenting the Virgin of Emacs as the thing it parodies. That's a minor but nasty example. any pseudo-celebrity could expect that kind of reaction for such statements, especially when the community only has 3% females. It begs an explanation, people may be quick to jump on a simple one. Software owners are constantly staging these things while their advertising and other messages are completely degraded. This is a systematic thing and your question has encouraged me to finish up a few essays I've been working on. Some suggested reading includes, http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20071023002351958 http://techrights.org/2009/02/08/microsoft-evilness-galore/ http://techrights.org/2008/12/27/microsoft-shills-aka-te-secrets/ http://www.catb.org/esr/halloween/halloween1.html http://archive09.linux.com/articles/38081 http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20100312150121798 http://techrights.org/2009/03/16/smear-campaigns-against-foss-proponents/ http://techrights.org/2008/03/17/manufacturing-abuse/ http://blog.wired.com/business/2007/03/enough_about_me.html http://techrights.org/2009/05/02/perception-management-at-microsoft/ http://www.cypherpunks.to/~peter/zdnet.html I guess that is an example of one company (Microsoft), who doesn't like libreware. they have a pretty bad track record in general for someone that abuses their power, in many domains. though you said software-owners plural, so I'm wondering who these alleged others are. If it's just Microsoft, then I'd say it's more of a single actor rather than some kind of pattern. so far all the publishers you've linked to seem to also be supportive of libreware, and disliking of Microsofts behaviour. On Friday 22 May 2015, streo...@gmail.com wrote: will hill easy to observe pattern of publishers missrepresenting GNU and the FSF by all means at their disposal examples?
Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Fwd: The FSF Allows No Derivatives,
These are mostly examples of Microsoft representatives lying about people and things in ways that might be allowed by law. I think they show a pattern strong enough to prove they will lie in any way allowed, and spend lots of money doing it. On Saturday 23 May 2015, Aaron Wolf wrote: The relevant question isn't does anyone misrepresent RMS,
Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Fwd: The FSF Allows No Derivatives,
The relevant question isn't does anyone misrepresent RMS, the question is are there examples of misrepresentation that violate the CC-BY-ND license and would not be violations of CC-BY-SA because those are the only sort that the ND license discussion is relevant to. I could look through your references, but since you looked at them already, you'd be faster at identifying answers to whether any fit this question. On 05/22/2015 11:27 PM, Will Hill wrote: You might remember the RMS is a sexist fiasco, where all sorts of articles poured out misrepresenting the Virgin of Emacs as the thing it parodies. That's a minor but nasty example. Software owners are constantly staging these things while their advertising and other messages are completely degraded. This is a systematic thing and your question has encouraged me to finish up a few essays I've been working on. Some suggested reading includes, http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20071023002351958 http://techrights.org/2009/02/08/microsoft-evilness-galore/ http://techrights.org/2008/12/27/microsoft-shills-aka-te-secrets/ http://www.catb.org/esr/halloween/halloween1.html http://archive09.linux.com/articles/38081 http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20100312150121798 http://techrights.org/2009/03/16/smear-campaigns-against-foss-proponents/ http://techrights.org/2008/03/17/manufacturing-abuse/ http://blog.wired.com/business/2007/03/enough_about_me.html http://techrights.org/2009/05/02/perception-management-at-microsoft/ http://www.cypherpunks.to/~peter/zdnet.html On Friday 22 May 2015, streo...@gmail.com wrote: will hill easy to observe pattern of publishers missrepresenting GNU and the FSF by all means at their disposal examples? -- Aaron Wolf co-founder, Snowdrift.coop music teacher, wolftune.com
Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Fwd: The FSF Allows No Derivatives,
Dnia czwartek, 14 maja 2015 12:16:35 Will Hill pisze: Misleading translations prove that misleading translations are a problem we need to think about. Right now, GNU could go after Google, Bing and other bad actors if they were to provide bad translations. Will this be enough? How will things be improved by getting rid of ND? I'd rather see resources put elsewhere than contributing to a Scroogle campaign. I'm not comfortable with the situation but encourage honest efforts. You know what? We should all wear red undergarments to fight misleading translations! It will have pretty much the same net positive effect as -ND on it. It will definitely not worsen the situation, so -- by your logic -- we *should* do it. I'd love to sponsor some for you. Where should I send your red boxers to? Copyright in the US is still mostly civil law, enforced at the discression of the offended party which may be selective. If it were not that way, we could not make licenses and exceptions like the GPL. I do not consider it unjust to give people the power to avoid misrepresentation and plagiarism. You are mixing fraud and copyright infringement. Please stop doing so. It does not help us get anywhere in this discussion. Go ahead and publish your translation. I can't speak for GNU but I imagine the worst thing that would happen to you is that you will be told to take it down. In the best case, you will get some corrections. That seems to be how GNU deals with infringement. I can't. That would be breaking the law. If I infringed upon copyrights of the FSF, I would be a hypocrite, as I am active against other forms of copyright infringement of, say, GNU GPL. This also makes you a hypocrite. If it's not okay for the BigCo Ltd. to infrigne upon GNU GPL, how does that make it okay to infringe (or suggesting to do so!) upon FSF's -ND license? You have told me that getting rid of ND will liberate honest efforts. I've objected that it will give people with wealth and power more advantages and won't work. Are there any studies showing us what really works? That is finally a good question. I would love to see such studies. Thing is, I have shown you a concrete and real example where FSF's -ND license actually hampered a honest effort. In lieu of studies, can you reciprocate with showing at least one instance where -ND stopped a dishonest translation? Misattribution is a different problem, mind you -- as this is *always* illegal. So, -ND or no -ND, misattribution and misquoting is, as underlined before, *fraud*. So again, what exactly do you need -ND for? -- 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] Fwd: The FSF Allows No Derivatives,
On Friday 22 May 2015, rysiek wrote: Go ahead and publish your translation. I can't speak for GNU but I imagine the worst thing that would happen to you is that you will be told to take it down. In the best case, you will get some corrections. That seems to be how GNU deals with infringement. I can't. That would be breaking the law. If I infringed upon copyrights of the FSF, I would be a hypocrite, as I am active against other forms of copyright infringement of, say, GNU GPL. This also makes you a hypocrite. If it's not okay for the BigCo Ltd. to infrigne upon GNU GPL, how does that make it okay to infringe (or suggesting to do so!) upon FSF's -ND license? Laws should follow morals rather than the other way around. I'm willing to break laws if it's the right thing to do and I'm willing to live with the punishment. By the same token, I expect big companies like Sony to also be punished more severely for larger infringements. I know that's not really the case, but I won't let their criminal behavior reduce my demands for justice. I don't know how Polish law works, but you would not have much to fear in the US if you published a translation of GNU documents. can you [show] at least one instance where -ND stopped a dishonest translation? No, but there is an easy to observe pattern of publishers missrepresenting GNU and the FSF by all means at their disposal. Removing this protection would encourage them to violate the public that way too. I'd love to sponsor some for you. Where should I send your red boxers to? As much as I'd enjoy your underwear, I'd rather you gave the money to the FSF or your hackerspace.
Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Fwd: The FSF Allows No Derivatives
'notice how users are now called “recipients,” and their Freedoms are now called “permissions”' ROFL. The words recipient, permission, freedom, and user are different and they are all used when we discuss software licensing and related topics. There is no switch that is occurring. The words permission and recipient are used throughout the GNU GPL versions 2 and 3, including in the preamble. They are also used on license-list.html to describe software licenses, although it is true they are used less frequently. -- Joshua Gay Licensing Compliance Manager http://www.fsf.org/licensing Free Software Foundationhttps://donate.fsf.org GPG key ID: 8DA625BBWhat's a GPG key ID? See our Email Self-Defense Guide: https://emailselfdefense.fsf.org
Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Fwd: The FSF Allows No Derivatives
On 05/16/2015 01:44 AM, Aaron Wolf wrote: But this is all tangential. You and others have failed to provide any reasonable justification for RMS' use of ND other than an ill-founded claim that it actually helps avoid misrepresentation. I've pointed out that misrepresentation is possible regardless and that CC has a clause that requires modified versions to be marked as modified. Furthermore, plagiarism and misrepresentation are fraudulent regardless of copyright law. A statement in a licensing clause that states: this work has been extremely accurately translated from the original French of the author into English, I believe, would suffice to comply with CC BY 4.0 condition that you must indicate if changes were made. So imagine if someone used that sort of statement for a CC BY version of an RMS essay but in the work they created they translated the term free software in one language to the phrase open source software in another. I think it would be fair to say that this is a misrepresentation of RMS's original work (not just the ideas) because it would not be accurate to call it an extremely accurate translation, even if in doing so one complies with the license. Anyhow, that is just a hypothetical example in response to what you said to show that I think one can produce a misrepresention of an author's work and comply with the terms of a CC BY license. Personally, I don't find the use of ND licenses to be an injustice when applied to non-software works. If I did find it an injustice, I would not work for the FSF. I do, however, prefer that my works carry to everyone the freedoms to modify and redistribute modifications. That is, I think the benefit of encouraging this sort of activity outweighs the risk of an author's work being misrepresented. -- Joshua Gay Licensing Compliance Manager http://www.fsf.org/licensing Free Software Foundationhttps://donate.fsf.org GPG key ID: 8DA625BBWhat's a GPG key ID? See our Email Self-Defense Guide: https://emailselfdefense.fsf.org
Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Fwd: The FSF Allows No Derivatives
The point isn't that CC-BY or CC-BY-SA are impossible to misrepresent nor that the mark as modified clause is a foolproof block of misrepresentation. The point is that ND itself is not a foolproof block of misrepresentation. And since there's little (no?) evidence of it being helpful in reality… There are other alternatives for authenticity. The ideal approach is to have an official version, i.e. an *endorsed* version. It's easy enough for an author to say this is the official, endorsed translation. And any other translation is obviously unendorsed and should be viewed with some skepticism. On 05/18/2015 08:16 AM, Joshua Gay wrote: On 05/16/2015 01:44 AM, Aaron Wolf wrote: But this is all tangential. You and others have failed to provide any reasonable justification for RMS' use of ND other than an ill-founded claim that it actually helps avoid misrepresentation. I've pointed out that misrepresentation is possible regardless and that CC has a clause that requires modified versions to be marked as modified. Furthermore, plagiarism and misrepresentation are fraudulent regardless of copyright law. A statement in a licensing clause that states: this work has been extremely accurately translated from the original French of the author into English, I believe, would suffice to comply with CC BY 4.0 condition that you must indicate if changes were made. So imagine if someone used that sort of statement for a CC BY version of an RMS essay but in the work they created they translated the term free software in one language to the phrase open source software in another. I think it would be fair to say that this is a misrepresentation of RMS's original work (not just the ideas) because it would not be accurate to call it an extremely accurate translation, even if in doing so one complies with the license. Anyhow, that is just a hypothetical example in response to what you said to show that I think one can produce a misrepresention of an author's work and comply with the terms of a CC BY license. Personally, I don't find the use of ND licenses to be an injustice when applied to non-software works. If I did find it an injustice, I would not work for the FSF. I do, however, prefer that my works carry to everyone the freedoms to modify and redistribute modifications. That is, I think the benefit of encouraging this sort of activity outweighs the risk of an author's work being misrepresented. -- Aaron Wolf co-founder, Snowdrift.coop music teacher, wolftune.com
Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Fwd: The FSF Allows No Derivatives
Giuseppe, You seem to be not understanding these licenses. As already stated, the other (non-ND) CC licenses already *include* clauses already that state that modified version must be marked as modified and that authors can demand that their name be *removed* from derivatives they wish to not be associated with. So, where is the threat of misrepresentation that ND is protecting against where CC-BY-SA would not? It seems the defenders of ND are merely repeating the same baseless claims over and over. It amounts basically to FUD. Sorry for any impression of impatience, but please try to actually understand the situation before making your claims. Provide *any* evidence or citations at all. These are reasonable things to ask for. Best, Aaron On 05/17/2015 01:45 AM, Giuseppe Molica wrote: Care to cite a single example? I've *never* heard of a case in which someone misrepresented anyone and an ND license was useful in taking down the misrepresentation. A license has legal value, so, if you want to sue someone for not respecting it, you can do. The -ND helps to keep under control works of opinion; our fight is political, and politicians live misrepresenting words of concurrents. Expecially for RMS and his speeches about freedom and community; it's fundamental to represent his words in the right way, no matter what. -- Aaron Wolf co-founder, Snowdrift.coop music teacher, wolftune.com
Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Fwd: The FSF Allows No Derivatives
Giuseppe, You have made a *major* error in your thinking. You are asserting that 100% of the value of a political writing is held in the value of identifying the message with an author. Your logic is saying that the *entire* value of RMS' writings is in identifying RMS' views so that people know specifically what RMS thinks. In fact, almost the entire value actually comes from the underlying value of the ideas. The value is in the message itself. Thus, a translation of my political writings into Italian offers value proportional to how valuable my message and perspective is. If my writing was pretty much worthless, the translation will be worthless. If my writings were inspiring, meaningful, insightful, then a translation that manages to uphold the important elements and be inspiring, meaningful, and insightful is itself just as valuable as the original. Yes, it holds just a bit less value in *one* regard: information about what I believe. For that one *minor* value, the translation is not worthless, but isn't perfect. But that value is rarely the important one. You could translate my work *without* crediting me (say if I used CC0 waiver of my copyright), and the mere spreading of valuable ideas would be valuable — and that value would be hampered if I used terms that made it harder for you to spread these ideas. On 05/17/2015 03:53 AM, Giuseppe Molica wrote: As already stated, the other (non-ND) CC licenses already *include* clauses already that state that modified version must be marked as modified and that authors can demand that their name be *removed* from derivatives they wish to not be associated with. Let's make a theoretical example: if you write a political article, and I decide to translate it in italian, making some changes, and marking it as modified, what your gain is? It becomes MY representation of YOUR view, so it doesn't help your cause; who is interested in your opinion must read your version: this means that my translation is useless and dangerous, because who doesn't check will never know how my modified version is different from the original article, and could think (despite the mark) that our visions are similar. -- Aaron Wolf co-founder, Snowdrift.coop music teacher, wolftune.com
Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Fwd: The FSF Allows No Derivatives
As already stated, the other (non-ND) CC licenses already *include* clauses already that state that modified version must be marked as modified and that authors can demand that their name be *removed* from derivatives they wish to not be associated with. Let's make a theoretical example: if you write a political article, and I decide to translate it in italian, making some changes, and marking it as modified, what your gain is? It becomes MY representation of YOUR view, so it doesn't help your cause; who is interested in your opinion must read your version: this means that my translation is useless and dangerous, because who doesn't check will never know how my modified version is different from the original article, and could think (despite the mark) that our visions are similar. -- Giuseppe Molica Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? - Juvenal
Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Fwd: The FSF Allows No Derivatives
By the way, here's a concrete example of derivative culture that is *not* like a simple translation: I saw this crappy thing posted by Mozilla that uses all the bullshit propaganda of DRM-pushing corporations: https://stacy.makes.org/thimble/MTUxMzI5MjI4OA==/what-is-drm That thing is *missing* a license indication. However, it is part of this webmaker thing that encourages remixing. So, I fixed it: https://wolftune.makes.org/thimble/MjAxNzU5MTgwOA==/what-is-drm Now, the fixed version was much easier to do than writing the whole thing myself. The fixed version is far better and more valuable because it accurately describes DRM as restrictions management, not right management etc. I marked it modified. My version does *not* represent the views of the original author precisely. Who cares? The original author has bullshit views. My version is an improvement. Now, you want to promote the idea that my improvements should be censored? It's more important that we can censor people adapting RMS even if that means we get censored ourselves? The freedoms of culture here are totally important. And we simply have to accept that this goes all ways. I can and should fix propaganda from corporate crap, and we must also tolerate people adapting RMS' views in ways we might not like. Respecting these freedoms is not about false attribution or misrepresentation. On 05/17/2015 10:56 AM, Aaron Wolf wrote: Giuseppe, You have made a *major* error in your thinking. You are asserting that 100% of the value of a political writing is held in the value of identifying the message with an author. Your logic is saying that the *entire* value of RMS' writings is in identifying RMS' views so that people know specifically what RMS thinks. In fact, almost the entire value actually comes from the underlying value of the ideas. The value is in the message itself. Thus, a translation of my political writings into Italian offers value proportional to how valuable my message and perspective is. If my writing was pretty much worthless, the translation will be worthless. If my writings were inspiring, meaningful, insightful, then a translation that manages to uphold the important elements and be inspiring, meaningful, and insightful is itself just as valuable as the original. Yes, it holds just a bit less value in *one* regard: information about what I believe. For that one *minor* value, the translation is not worthless, but isn't perfect. But that value is rarely the important one. You could translate my work *without* crediting me (say if I used CC0 waiver of my copyright), and the mere spreading of valuable ideas would be valuable — and that value would be hampered if I used terms that made it harder for you to spread these ideas. On 05/17/2015 03:53 AM, Giuseppe Molica wrote: As already stated, the other (non-ND) CC licenses already *include* clauses already that state that modified version must be marked as modified and that authors can demand that their name be *removed* from derivatives they wish to not be associated with. Let's make a theoretical example: if you write a political article, and I decide to translate it in italian, making some changes, and marking it as modified, what your gain is? It becomes MY representation of YOUR view, so it doesn't help your cause; who is interested in your opinion must read your version: this means that my translation is useless and dangerous, because who doesn't check will never know how my modified version is different from the original article, and could think (despite the mark) that our visions are similar. -- Aaron Wolf co-founder, Snowdrift.coop music teacher, wolftune.com
Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Fwd: The FSF Allows No Derivatives
I agree with you Will. There is no justification for the law gives me a choice, therefore, respect my choice. No. I am perfectly free (legally and morally) to think whatever about someone's choices. And when someone's choices are harmful to the world, we can and should attack those choices. Proprietary software developers do not *deserve* the choice to be proprietary. Proprietary software ought not exist. On 05/16/2015 08:39 AM, Will Hill wrote: We should not respect other people's impositions on us, we should hate them and work to undo that imposition. On Saturday 16 May 2015, Terry wrote: Even when we don't agree with licensing choices (Microsoft) we should still respect that presently it is their right to choose. -- Aaron Wolf co-founder, Snowdrift.coop music teacher, wolftune.com
Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Fwd: The FSF Allows No Derivatives
I agree with you Will. There is no justification for the law gives me a choice, therefore, respect my choice. No. I am perfectly free (legally and morally) to think whatever about someone's choices. And when someone's choices are harmful to the world, we can and should attack those choices. Proprietary software developers do not *deserve* the choice to be proprietary. Proprietary software ought not exist. On 05/16/2015 08:39 AM, Will Hill wrote: We should not respect other people's impositions on us, we should hate them and work to undo that imposition. On Saturday 16 May 2015, Terry wrote: Even when we don't agree with licensing choices (Microsoft) we should still respect that presently it is their right to choose. -- Aaron Wolf co-founder, Snowdrift.coop music teacher, wolftune.com
Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Fwd: The FSF Allows No Derivatives
I have repeatedly pointed to software owner's attempts to smear and misrepresent free software advocates and said that this is a good reason to have ND. It gives us the power to take down the most offensive misrepresentations of opinion. Yes, there are many other ways software owners lie and confuse people about free software but having this one power is helpful. Current law also does nothing to prevent that fraud. People have argued that things will work out better over all if we could provide modified works of opinion, but no one has shown me any studdies that prove it. I don't think removing unintentional pauses, changing camera angles, or providing a good faith transcript are violations of ND terms. Fair use should cover quotes well enough so that this is not an issue. There are many RMS quote collections, for example. I don't think anyone will request those are taken down. On Saturday 16 May 2015, Aaron Wolf wrote: [RMS] should stop using ND. It isn't justified and you haven't provided even a reasonable argument for it that could be discussed.
Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Fwd: The FSF Allows No Derivatives
If the context is clear enough the change is transformative, isn't it? We can tell the difference between a propaganda site and a professor making class material in good faith or an artist making a painting. Would anyone have a problem with that? On Saturday 16 May 2015, rysiek wrote: I believe this distinction is artificial. Any text can be used in any context, and indeed often is. A work of opinion can become a work of art or educational material by simply changig the context it is accessed/experienced in.
Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Fwd: The FSF Allows No Derivatives
On 05/16/2015 03:38 AM, libreplanet-discuss-requ...@libreplanet.org wrote: But this is all tangential. You and others have failed to provide any reasonable justification for RMS' use of ND other than an ill-founded claim that it actually helps avoid misrepresentation. The fact that we have created legal structures that try and create ownerships for intangible things has caused a great many issues and no doubt will continue to do so. However that is the current reality we are all dealing with. The initial question was thought provoking. Stallman/FSF choosing ND licenses for anything is in the end their choice to make and does not require a justification be made. Even when we don't agree with licensing choices (Microsoft) we should still respect that presently it is their right to choose. I hope you apply in writing for permission to make your derivative(s) and are granted it. I apologize if I seemed brash before. Personally I am done with this thread but I do look forward to other interesting topics.
Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Fwd: The FSF Allows No Derivatives
Dnia piątek, 15 maja 2015 23:43:40 klez pisze: I won't explicitly take a stance on the issue (at the moment I'm still trying to form an opinion on that), but the clear distinction (to me) is that software *does* something, while a written text does not. The question is: can you make such a strong distinction between texts that are works of art and those that are wokrs of opinion. FSF's stance on -ND hinges on that distinction being possible to make. I believe this distinction is artificial. Any text can be used in any context, and indeed often is. A work of opinion can become a work of art or educational material by simply changig the context it is accessed/experienced in. -- 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] Fwd: The FSF Allows No Derivatives
Dnia piątek, 15 maja 2015 10:14:41 Terry pisze: Why is the incredible desire to quote but not? Why not use the wasted time and efforts spent arguing about this rewriting things your own words and just be done with it. This horse has been beat enough and should be dead already. Quoting is *explicitly* allowed by copyright law. The above completely, utterly misses the point. -- 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] Fwd: The FSF Allows No Derivatives
On 05/15/2015 02:27 PM, Yoni Rabkin wrote: Aaron Wolf wolft...@riseup.net writes: Why the incredible desire to use existing source code? Why not use the wasted time and efforts spent arguing about this reverse engineering your software and just be done with it. … Because works of personal opinion are different than useful software. Not different enough so that the same completely useless statement from Terry couldn't be applied identically. If you want to push this distinction, you are being intellectually dishonest ... And complaining about the arguing is just a complete cop-out. Calling people intellectually dishonest, telling them that their statements are completely useless and that they are copping out doesn't help anyone understand the issue better and probably just puts people on the defensive and hurts feelings. There really is no reason or justification for doing that. Please let's stop attacking people (if you feel attacked yourself please ask the people doing so to stop so that we can go back to advancing the issue.) I don't feel like being attacked; I feel like discussing the subject. So I'll dropping back out of this conversion at this point. If the tone changes I may consider joining again. -- Cut your own wood and it will warm you twice
Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Fwd: The FSF Allows No Derivatives
There are *certainly* distinctions between executable binary computer programs and other media, just as there are distinctions between live concerts and movies and math formulas and personal letters. Of course there are different media and different contexts. And different computer programs may be more or less important (consider heart monitor software versus a trivial time-kill game). The question is whether there is any distinction that actually affects the conclusions regarding arguments about intellectual and creative freedoms. On 05/15/2015 02:43 PM, klez wrote: I won't explicitly take a stance on the issue (at the moment I'm still trying to form an opinion on that), but the clear distinction (to me) is that software *does* something, while a written text does not. On Fri, 15 May 2015 14:35:09 -0700 Aaron Wolf wolft...@riseup.net wrote: On 05/15/2015 02:27 PM, Yoni Rabkin wrote: Aaron Wolf wolft...@riseup.net writes: Why the incredible desire to use existing source code? Why not use the wasted time and efforts spent arguing about this reverse engineering your software and just be done with it. … Because works of personal opinion are different than useful software. Not different enough so that the same completely useless statement from Terry couldn't be applied identically. If you want to push this distinction, you are being intellectually dishonest if you don't allow the very same logic and arguments to be applied. If the distinction is real, then there *must* be cases where you can take the same logic and show that it applies in one case and not the other. The example you are replying to is not that. The you're wasting time, do it yourself argument works for both unless you get into discussing whether someone like RMS spending lots of time and talent writing clearly is somehow different from software engineers doing the same with code. It's put simply in Nina's http://blog.ninapaley.com/2011/07/04/rantifesto/ She points out that in the argument from RMS / FSF about works of opinion the language changes. 'notice how users are now called “recipients,” and their Freedoms are now called “permissions”' If you can't make your point about the distinction by applying the *identical* arguments and yet come to a different conclusion, then the issues between the different media are *not* distinct in this regard. And complaining about the arguing is just a complete cop-out. -- Aaron Wolf co-founder, Snowdrift.coop music teacher, wolftune.com
Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Fwd: The FSF Allows No Derivatives
I am open to constructive criticism about tone. I care about respectful discourse. To be clear: I wrote: If you want to push this distinction, you are being intellectually dishonest if you don't allow the very same logic and arguments to be applied. I did not accuse anyone of *being* intellectually dishonest, because I did not accuse anyone of disallowing the the same logic for software and other media. I was saying that *if* we were to go that far, it *would* be intellectually dishonest. This was relevant because there were hints in that direction, but I wasn't concluding that anyone actually held the intellectually dishonest position. I also agree that it isn't the best tone to say completely useless statement from Terry But his words were: Why not use the wasted time and efforts spent arguing about this rewriting things your own words and just be done with it. This horse has been beat enough and should be dead already. In other words, he offered a rude, counter-productive approach that appears closed-minded to concerns and effectively reads like whatever, shut up about this. And I didn't initially reply by insulting his words, I just applied the same words to software to show the inconsistent thinking. I described his words as useless to explain the relationship when someone didn't understand my first point. I think we can and should all maintain respectful discourse. I could do better myself. But I didn't attack anyone personally, I only criticized sloppy arguments that were written here. I *will* work to improve my tone, but my points stand and are reasonable in and of themselves. On 05/15/2015 03:32 PM, Yoni Rabkin wrote: On 05/15/2015 02:27 PM, Yoni Rabkin wrote: Aaron Wolf wolft...@riseup.net writes: Why the incredible desire to use existing source code? Why not use the wasted time and efforts spent arguing about this reverse engineering your software and just be done with it. … Because works of personal opinion are different than useful software. Not different enough so that the same completely useless statement from Terry couldn't be applied identically. If you want to push this distinction, you are being intellectually dishonest ... And complaining about the arguing is just a complete cop-out. Calling people intellectually dishonest, telling them that their statements are completely useless and that they are copping out doesn't help anyone understand the issue better and probably just puts people on the defensive and hurts feelings. There really is no reason or justification for doing that. Please let's stop attacking people (if you feel attacked yourself please ask the people doing so to stop so that we can go back to advancing the issue.) I don't feel like being attacked; I feel like discussing the subject. So I'll dropping back out of this conversion at this point. If the tone changes I may consider joining again. -- Aaron Wolf co-founder, Snowdrift.coop music teacher, wolftune.com
Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Fwd: The FSF Allows No Derivatives
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 14:35:09 -0700, Aaron Wolf wrote: It's put simply in Nina's http://blog.ninapaley.com/2011/07/04/rantifesto/ Thank you for sharing that. - -- Mike Gerwitz Free Software Hacker | GNU Maintainer http://mikegerwitz.com FSF Member #5804 | GPG Key ID: 0x8EE30EAB -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1 iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJVVqDOAAoJEPIruBWO4w6rM8wP+wTp/dqEdluqO4TcGmjWhFDT udeTMsjbCY5DYQUFY226yjLIOmOPm9UDTRn7TRO0pPe7yv269d717txM4XI3e/8S 8gI+V5e8ZQRHTrvqKkj4KaK3DMJOnHPoeYXJkii1ylFeB08jhVTwLRN2logGYT5B QR6t3yQcgqfJLnZRPtXH1hCwaElMNFP+23T7+K+5pcwziOfrGAQ6ccpfIFNn1RiF IO0zVlFLdXqrblSsQ5pQ/JOQ1RIblErg2IIlttGlLGJpaCQg9FbR2uTNCIJuvQAQ h4je4ykOOLq7cSGRnhFaGtXdjMkixUInDy+Mt9OEQWqYQLU/bE2pGBipXYbRzjoA TCCQXMyybda+rvZIG+cCFmxjsKWhgoMvET8RkVj7LUhZKnrKIZSIg2Abtd9yZggK +ahjgrmYV58SOq+gQqIeTBCHlxfoAzeDpPi2z/R7sbYJ3UApcz9uRE94/xlcfGDR cVf+w+/4kLSq+xFfttXWPOXCiIIbiX3A3AwKCCZGquHipL6tXUk/Dh99sMbYVi54 ZFA81lkvBW9IR2eA2ltfAsLiCQRT3OSSEEdr4UKCHlvwDyz8fozSYoX8ZES2r0z2 WsCGdWVGE7yNYVf55e6hzq8+fH9yWx+oVmev3jbIePKhpbRrAqYK13zD76o+sZUB ZCDo1WKTwpVC0HWRhkc+ =T2fn -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Fwd: The FSF Allows No Derivatives
Hi Yoni, To give your point a little more clarity: You are simply saying that you don't understand the value of making direct derivatives culturally (versus just inspired works). It's fine to say that. Perhaps you are not a really dedicated creative artist like Nina Paley or a seriously dedicated musician or author. I suggest you check out http://everythingisaremix.info/ If you really want to understand more, maybe read the imperfect but largely wonderful full book Free Culture by Lawrence Lessig http://free-culture.cc/freecontent/ To avoid ranting further, I'll briefly wrap this up. The fact that you don't personally understand the great works that cannot happen because of ND or all-rights-reserved restrictions just shows that you, one person, can't understand everything. I am a guitar teacher. I would like to create a major improvement to educational materials using the best resources and reference to hundreds of culturally-relevant songs that would inspire students. Copyright and ND terms block my ability to do this. I could go on. Please trust me, we are greatly lacking all sorts of important value and work in our society because of these restrictions. Respectfully, Aaron On 05/15/2015 09:03 PM, Yoni Rabkin wrote: Logan Streondj streo...@gmail.com writes: On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 05:27:18PM -0400, Yoni Rabkin wrote: Aaron Wolf wolft...@riseup.net writes: Why the incredible desire to use existing source code? Why not use the wasted time and efforts spent arguing about this reverse engineering your software and just be done with it. … Because works of personal opinion are different than useful software. -- Cut your own wood and it will warm you twice works of personal opinion can be software with a speakable programming language. :-D In fact, works of opinion are used to program humans, which have more processing power than at least most computers, possibly than any computer thus far created. So in a way you could say, works of opinion, are extremely powerful pieces of software. I license my own blog under CC-BY-SA but I don't see, so far, a concrete problem with the FSF licensing essays on the site with ND. I think that a powerful argument would be if someone created something real: the GCC of essays if you will. Then point the FSF at that and say: See, this wonderful thing is what you are not allowing me to release. Please change the the ND license on those essays so that the whole free software community can benefit from my work. But I don't know what that would be. If I did, then I would probably appreciate the point being made about why ND is bad in this context. -- Aaron Wolf co-founder, Snowdrift.coop music teacher, wolftune.com
Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Fwd: The FSF Allows No Derivatives
Logan Streondj streo...@gmail.com writes: On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 05:27:18PM -0400, Yoni Rabkin wrote: Aaron Wolf wolft...@riseup.net writes: Why the incredible desire to use existing source code? Why not use the wasted time and efforts spent arguing about this reverse engineering your software and just be done with it. … Because works of personal opinion are different than useful software. -- Cut your own wood and it will warm you twice works of personal opinion can be software with a speakable programming language. :-D In fact, works of opinion are used to program humans, which have more processing power than at least most computers, possibly than any computer thus far created. So in a way you could say, works of opinion, are extremely powerful pieces of software. I license my own blog under CC-BY-SA but I don't see, so far, a concrete problem with the FSF licensing essays on the site with ND. I think that a powerful argument would be if someone created something real: the GCC of essays if you will. Then point the FSF at that and say: See, this wonderful thing is what you are not allowing me to release. Please change the the ND license on those essays so that the whole free software community can benefit from my work. But I don't know what that would be. If I did, then I would probably appreciate the point being made about why ND is bad in this context. -- Cut your own wood and it will warm you twice
Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Fwd: The FSF Allows No Derivatives
Your problem seems to be copyright wielded by a rapacious publishing industry. What does that have to do with Richard Stallman saying ND is appropriate for works of opinion, or translation? GNU is not keeping you from writing great music texts. If Richard Stallman was magically in charge of laws tomorrow, I think you would get your chance to write textbooks. On Saturday 16 May 2015, Aaron Wolf wrote: So, what's the line you are drawing? When are political statements not educational? Which songs have no opinions in them? On 05/15/2015 09:57 PM, Will Hill wrote: Who says we should apply ND to instructions, text books, or songs? On Friday 15 May 2015, Aaron Wolf wrote: I am a guitar teacher. I would like to create a major improvement to educational materials using the best resources and reference to hundreds of culturally-relevant songs that would inspire students.
Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Fwd: The FSF Allows No Derivatives
Will, Obviously, I agree with Richard Stallman's views in almost every respect. He is on the right side of all of this for the most part, and obviously there are bad actors on the opposite side. I'm not blaming RMS for the situation with the music industry. But this is all tangential. You and others have failed to provide any reasonable justification for RMS' use of ND other than an ill-founded claim that it actually helps avoid misrepresentation. I've pointed out that misrepresentation is possible regardless and that CC has a clause that requires modified versions to be marked as modified. Furthermore, plagiarism and misrepresentation are fraudulent regardless of copyright law. You haven't provided any clear point about what distinction you are drawing where freedom 3 should not apply. Nor have you addressed any of the other points. The most simple example of value from derivative works is the violation of ND that someone did when they posted an RMS video edited *only* to remove pauses while leaving the entire content intact. The result was a better viewing experience that more people will watch as it is shorter. There's tons of other ways people might use material productively. I might very well choose to make useful grammatical edits that make an essay just a bit easier to read. I could ask RMS for permission, but he would want to see the work first, so I'd have to do the work and then find out whether I can publish. If he says yes, I would surely have to keep the ND terms. Thus, someone else would have to ask him again if they wanted to make further improvements. Freedom is an important principle, and modeling it matters. Regardless of the utility of these exact writings, the message sent by promoting ND undermines values that are important and aligned with the mission for software freedom. Absolutely none of this is anywhere near as bad as the truly bad actors out there. RMS is still a great person and a hero doing wonderful things. But he should stop using ND. It isn't justified and you haven't provided even a reasonable argument for it that could be discussed. When/if RMS dropped ND, it *would* result in positive prospects for the messages of software freedom that we care about, and it would not have the feared results that he is currently so worried about. I still respect his emotional concern. He's not crazy to have these worries. But they aren't founded enough to justify the ND license. This is both practical and symbolic issue. Respectfully, Aaron On 05/15/2015 10:30 PM, Will Hill wrote: Your problem seems to be copyright wielded by a rapacious publishing industry. What does that have to do with Richard Stallman saying ND is appropriate for works of opinion, or translation? GNU is not keeping you from writing great music texts. If Richard Stallman was magically in charge of laws tomorrow, I think you would get your chance to write textbooks. On Saturday 16 May 2015, Aaron Wolf wrote: So, what's the line you are drawing? When are political statements not educational? Which songs have no opinions in them? On 05/15/2015 09:57 PM, Will Hill wrote: Who says we should apply ND to instructions, text books, or songs? On Friday 15 May 2015, Aaron Wolf wrote: I am a guitar teacher. I would like to create a major improvement to educational materials using the best resources and reference to hundreds of culturally-relevant songs that would inspire students. -- Aaron Wolf co-founder, Snowdrift.coop music teacher, wolftune.com
Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Fwd: The FSF Allows No Derivatives
If you can show me how you not having permission to misrepresent my opinions will give me control over your computer, then I'll believe that works of opinion and software are the same thing. Software freedoms are fundamental rights to control your own computer. It's not the software or the computer that's free, though they can be described that way, it's the user that has freedom. Works of opinions are a different kind of expression and deserve different kinds of rules. Nina is wrong to suppose that ND means one kind of expression is valued more than the other because she failed to understand some fundamentals of software freedom. I would have talked to her about this on G+ but she did not put it there. On Friday 15 May 2015, Aaron Wolf wrote: It's put simply in Nina's http://blog.ninapaley.com/2011/07/04/rantifesto/
Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Fwd: The FSF Allows No Derivatives
So, what's the line you are drawing? When are political statements not educational? Which songs have no opinions in them? On 05/15/2015 09:57 PM, Will Hill wrote: Who says we should apply ND to instructions, text books, or songs? On Friday 15 May 2015, Aaron Wolf wrote: I am a guitar teacher. I would like to create a major improvement to educational materials using the best resources and reference to hundreds of culturally-relevant songs that would inspire students. -- Aaron Wolf co-founder, Snowdrift.coop music teacher, wolftune.com
Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Fwd: The FSF Allows No Derivatives
Why is the incredible desire to quote but not? Why not use the wasted time and efforts spent arguing about this rewriting things your own words and just be done with it. This horse has been beat enough and should be dead already. On 05/15/2015 10:00 AM, libreplanet-discuss-requ...@libreplanet.org wrote: Re: Fwd: The FSF Allows No Derivatives
Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Fwd: The FSF Allows No Derivatives
Why the incredible desire to use existing source code? Why not use the wasted time and efforts spent arguing about this reverse engineering your software and just be done with it. … On 05/15/2015 09:14 AM, Terry wrote: Why is the incredible desire to quote but not? Why not use the wasted time and efforts spent arguing about this rewriting things your own words and just be done with it. This horse has been beat enough and should be dead already. On 05/15/2015 10:00 AM, libreplanet-discuss-requ...@libreplanet.org wrote: Re: Fwd: The FSF Allows No Derivatives -- Aaron Wolf co-founder, Snowdrift.coop music teacher, wolftune.com
Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Fwd: The FSF Allows No Derivatives
Aaron Wolf wolft...@riseup.net writes: Why the incredible desire to use existing source code? Why not use the wasted time and efforts spent arguing about this reverse engineering your software and just be done with it. … Because works of personal opinion are different than useful software. -- Cut your own wood and it will warm you twice
Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Fwd: The FSF Allows No Derivatives
On 05/15/2015 02:27 PM, Yoni Rabkin wrote: Aaron Wolf wolft...@riseup.net writes: Why the incredible desire to use existing source code? Why not use the wasted time and efforts spent arguing about this reverse engineering your software and just be done with it. … Because works of personal opinion are different than useful software. Not different enough so that the same completely useless statement from Terry couldn't be applied identically. If you want to push this distinction, you are being intellectually dishonest if you don't allow the very same logic and arguments to be applied. If the distinction is real, then there *must* be cases where you can take the same logic and show that it applies in one case and not the other. The example you are replying to is not that. The you're wasting time, do it yourself argument works for both unless you get into discussing whether someone like RMS spending lots of time and talent writing clearly is somehow different from software engineers doing the same with code. It's put simply in Nina's http://blog.ninapaley.com/2011/07/04/rantifesto/ She points out that in the argument from RMS / FSF about works of opinion the language changes. 'notice how users are now called “recipients,” and their Freedoms are now called “permissions”' If you can't make your point about the distinction by applying the *identical* arguments and yet come to a different conclusion, then the issues between the different media are *not* distinct in this regard. And complaining about the arguing is just a complete cop-out. -- Aaron Wolf co-founder, Snowdrift.coop music teacher, wolftune.com
Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Fwd: The FSF Allows No Derivatives,
Dnia piątek, 8 maja 2015 11:52:43 Aaron Wolf pisze: Honest people follow licenses and thus self-censor. Dishonest people ignore licenses. Removing ND terms means we get more spreading of ideas via translations and other derivatives by honest people. This. The Polish translation has never been published, as we have not received the license. Dnia piątek, 8 maja 2015 13:15:37 Will Hill pisze: Someone has been messing with Google Translations, as if to underline the point and to waste people's time with infighting. Trisquel in English translates to Ubuntu and totally free in English translates to gratuito in Spanish. http://50.80.140.55/photo_album/chron/2015/2015_05_05-google_translate_trisq uel/ And that proves what? That Google Translate is not perfect at translations?.. How exactly an -ND license fixes that? Without some restrictions, we give publishers the ability to modify out message in ways which oppress all of us. We should guard against misrepresentation by people who have the resources to bury any signal under a pile of noise. As I have written many, many times, -ND does next nothing to actually stop this. This only stops honest initiatives; the rest simply ignore the license. I think the free software community has larger problems and will allocate resources properly. Who is going to censor a Polish translation by an honest group, especially if they don't have the time or resources to properly review it? That's the way big publishers and groups like the BSA use copyright law. I find your lax approach to copyright law and licenses highly problematic, and quite a bit offensive -- copyleft, the (I would argue) crucial part of free software, could not be enforced without copyright. The above paragraph makes me eerily uncomfortable, as you seem to be okay with a situation where an entity *selectively* uses law to target other entities. That's hypocrisy. That's the old Soviet rule of give me a man and I'll find the law, or Robespierre's give me a few senteces written by a hand of an honest man and I'll find something to hang them for. That's how Aaron Swartz has been targeted -- with unjust laws that people assumed would be used in a just manner. Either fix the license, or bite the bullet. I also think the free software community has bigger problems, and that is *precisely* why I believe -ND is counter-productive and unnecessary. -- 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] Fwd: The FSF Allows No Derivatives,
I do not consider it unjust to give people the power to avoid misrepresentation and plagiarism. This is all red herring stuff. Plagiarism is FRAUD. Misrepresentation is FRAUD. Misattribution is FRAUD. Those are beyond copyright. If I say RMS said that everyone should now use Apache licenses and stop using GPL I have NOT committed *any* form of copyright infringement. Period. I have committed FRAUD. I could say I wrote the GPL, not RMS! and that would be plagiarism and fraud. Again, it would NOT be copyright infringement. The ND clause has the *primary* effect of stopping people from taking some of RMS writings, some of Lessig's writings, some of my writings, and making a great video promoting software freedom… and all sorts of other such things. Furthermore, the CC licenses have this clause, which I *already* pointed out in THIS THREAD here: See https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/legalcode SECTION 3a1B: If You Share the Licensed Material (including in modified form), You must: indicate if You modified the Licensed Material and retain an indication of any previous modifications; We cannot even have an honest discussion about the ND license if people insist on ignoring the basic facts about what it does and does not cover or allow. On 05/14/2015 10:16 AM, Will Hill wrote: Misleading translations prove that misleading translations are a problem we need to think about. Right now, GNU could go after Google, Bing and other bad actors if they were to provide bad translations. Will this be enough? How will things be improved by getting rid of ND? I'd rather see resources put elsewhere than contributing to a Scroogle campaign. I'm not comfortable with the situation but encourage honest efforts. Copyright in the US is still mostly civil law, enforced at the discression of the offended party which may be selective. If it were not that way, we could not make licenses and exceptions like the GPL. I do not consider it unjust to give people the power to avoid misrepresentation and plagiarism. Go ahead and publish your translation. I can't speak for GNU but I imagine the worst thing that would happen to you is that you will be told to take it down. In the best case, you will get some corrections. That seems to be how GNU deals with infringement. You have told me that getting rid of ND will liberate honest efforts. I've objected that it will give people with wealth and power more advantages and won't work. Are there any studies showing us what really works? -- Aaron Wolf co-founder, Snowdrift.coop music teacher, wolftune.com
Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Fwd: The FSF Allows No Derivatives,
Misleading translations prove that misleading translations are a problem we need to think about. Right now, GNU could go after Google, Bing and other bad actors if they were to provide bad translations. Will this be enough? How will things be improved by getting rid of ND? I'd rather see resources put elsewhere than contributing to a Scroogle campaign. I'm not comfortable with the situation but encourage honest efforts. Copyright in the US is still mostly civil law, enforced at the discression of the offended party which may be selective. If it were not that way, we could not make licenses and exceptions like the GPL. I do not consider it unjust to give people the power to avoid misrepresentation and plagiarism. Go ahead and publish your translation. I can't speak for GNU but I imagine the worst thing that would happen to you is that you will be told to take it down. In the best case, you will get some corrections. That seems to be how GNU deals with infringement. You have told me that getting rid of ND will liberate honest efforts. I've objected that it will give people with wealth and power more advantages and won't work. Are there any studies showing us what really works?
Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Fwd: The FSF Allows No Derivatives,
Someone has been messing with Google Translations, as if to underline the point and to waste people's time with infighting. Trisquel in English translates to Ubuntu and totally free in English translates to gratuito in Spanish. http://50.80.140.55/photo_album/chron/2015/2015_05_05-google_translate_trisquel/ Without some restrictions, we give publishers the ability to modify out message in ways which oppress all of us. We should guard against misrepresentation by people who have the resources to bury any signal under a pile of noise. I think the free software community has larger problems and will allocate resources properly. Who is going to censor a Polish translation by an honest group, especially if they don't have the time or resources to properly review it? That's the way big publishers and groups like the BSA use copyright law. On Monday 27 April 2015, Logan Streondj wrote: On Sat, Apr 25, 2015 at 01:03:24PM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote: ... 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. #english: if thou write opinion in speak program language then capable it translate clear. we live in time with many languages. capable many peoples benefit from liberty opinion. translate program improve with time and code. write by Logan. #español: [and many other equally bad machine translations]
Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Fwd: The FSF Allows No Derivatives,
Honest people follow licenses and thus self-censor. Dishonest people ignore licenses. Removing ND terms means we get more spreading of ideas via translations and other derivatives by honest people. On 05/08/2015 11:15 AM, Will Hill wrote: Someone has been messing with Google Translations, as if to underline the point and to waste people's time with infighting. Trisquel in English translates to Ubuntu and totally free in English translates to gratuito in Spanish. http://50.80.140.55/photo_album/chron/2015/2015_05_05-google_translate_trisquel/ Without some restrictions, we give publishers the ability to modify out message in ways which oppress all of us. We should guard against misrepresentation by people who have the resources to bury any signal under a pile of noise. I think the free software community has larger problems and will allocate resources properly. Who is going to censor a Polish translation by an honest group, especially if they don't have the time or resources to properly review it? That's the way big publishers and groups like the BSA use copyright law. On Monday 27 April 2015, Logan Streondj wrote: On Sat, Apr 25, 2015 at 01:03:24PM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote: ... 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. #english: if thou write opinion in speak program language then capable it translate clear. we live in time with many languages. capable many peoples benefit from liberty opinion. translate program improve with time and code. write by Logan. #español: [and many other equally bad machine translations] -- Aaron Wolf co-founder, Snowdrift.coop music teacher, wolftune.com
[libreplanet-discuss] Fwd: The FSF Allows No Derivatives,
On Sat, Apr 25, 2015 at 01:03:24PM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]
A friend of mine emailed Stallman about creating FAN translations of
published works that have been locked up by exclusive privileges, (not
questioning the legality of it because obviously we know the answer to
that question even if I don't agree with how the law works), but
questioning the morality of it. And he actually replied. He said
creating derivatives of published works without permission is morally
ok, but not translations. Translations are not ok.
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.
#english: if thou write opinion in speak program language then
capable it translate clear. we live in time with many
languages. capable many peoples benefit from liberty
opinion. translate program improve with time and code.
write by Logan.
#español: si tú a-escribir la-opinión en idioma programa
hablar entonces capaz ello traducir claro . nosotros
vivir en tiempo con muchos idiomas. capaz muchos
gente ser beneficio desde la-opinión libertad.
programa traducir mejorar con tiempo y código.
a-escribir por Logan.
#русский: если ты запись мнение, в говоритьом программаом
языку тогда способный оно́ перевести ясно. мы жить в време с
myi языком. способный myi люди, выгода от свободаом
мнени. перевестая программа, улучшать с ki . запись
по Logan.
#français: si tu écrire l'opinion, en la langue programme
parler, puis capable on traduire le clair. le nous , vivre en
le temps, avec les beaucoup langues. capable les
beaucoup personness. dès l'opinion liberté. la
programme traduire, améliorer avec le temps et code.
écrire par le Logan.
#nodejs: {if:(thee .write(opinion, {in:(language .program
.speak)})), then:(/*capable*/it .
.translate(clear))}); we .live({in:(time),
with:(many .language)}); /*capable*/many people
.benefit({from:(opinion .liberty)}); program
.translate .improve({with:(time code)});
write({by:(Logan)});
#mwak: wathpyamkwalni tuhu piynha yishhi ku tihu kliyha tyifhi
kiphtwahya kwalmyihmwah taymni wihu lishhiya luntmyihhu
liyspiynsu lafthi kiphya taymki kuwtmwah tyifpyamhu
muyphiya Loganhwu yishhiya
See http://gnu.org/philosophy/copyright-vs-community.html for my views
about modification of non-functional works such as art and opinion.
--
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation
51 Franklin St
Boston MA 02110
USA
www.fsf.org www.gnu.org
Skype: No way! See stallman.org/skype.html.
