On 2015-04-12, at 20:04, David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> wrote: > Marcin Borkowski <mb...@mbork.pl> writes: > >> Oh. This probably settles the thing. I had some hope that AUCTeX is >> outside the scope of this FSF-papers insanity. I don't have those >> papers signed, and unless there is some serious change (either in FSF, >> or in my ethical standpoint - either one is possible, but not very >> likely), I'm afraid I cannot sign them. > > Shrug. If you call it "your ethical standpoint", you are saying that > the FSF has behaved unethically regarding the copyrights they have been > handed for safekeeping. Or that you expect them to do so in future. > > [...] > > So it may make sense to consider whether the consequences of making your > point against the FSF are actually effective in promoting your ethics.
0. TL;DR: I have serious doubts regarding FSF copyright papers and FSF itself, and I'm generally disappointed by FSF's MLs. A list of issues I have (in the form of four questions) closes this message. 1. I tried to find the actual text of the copyright agreement on the Internet. I did not succeed, and from what I heard, I'm not alone. I haven't seen any explanation for that phenomenon, either. A situation when some organization has claims about freedom and openness and at the same is so secretive about these documents is a red flag for me. (Maybe there is some explanation for that. I'd be happy to learn that - I'm not a lawyer, there might be something I cannot see.) 2. There was a discussion some time ago about the possibility of actually /withdrawing/ the FSF copyright agreement. (Not to things that were contributed before, of course, just about termination so that future work would be unaffected.) Also, about the precise scope of the works I "give away" to the FSF. This problem is actually a corollary to item 1: if the text of the copyright agreement were freely available, it wouldn't be a concern. OTOH, the issue was raised by someone who /did/ sign those papers, so these things might not be obvious. OYAH (=on yet another hand;-)), that person was clearly a total jerk, so this might as well be FUD. But again: I have no way of knowing without actually requesting those papers. Strange, isn't it? (Even though you rightly point out that I could request them and then throw them away. It's just that I think that they should be available /on principle/, so that the whole process is more transparent.) 3. Some time ago, certain person wrote to one of the FSF-hosted mailing lists about his software project, which was not "free" (as FSF defines it) and closed-source. There were extremely hostile reactions to that, and it was just plainly disgusting. While I understand that the policy of FSF's MLs is "no promoting proprietary software", and I'm indeed not very far away from that ethically (even though I'm much less dogmatic about that issue as RMS), plain jerkassery (without anything that might look like a reaction from anyone on behalf of the FSF) was a huge disappointment for me. (In fact, before that discussion I was close to asking for the FSF's papers and signing them.) (BTW, one thing that makes me wonder is the question, whether RMS uses an elevator or a car; I suspect that software running on the controllers of these devices is not "free/open-source".) 4. Also, from the very same discussion I mentioned I drew the conclusion that FSF might want to deprive me of /my/ freedom to choose which software I use or how I license my software (or other works, for that matter). Even though I disagree with Mr Torvalds on some things, I have to admit that I'm closer to his standpoint on this: "I use whatever software gets the job done". I usually do research and try to use open-source software whenever possible, even if this might be a bit inconvenient, but I'm not very dogmatic about it: I have no problem with using an Android phone or playing a game on Windows. Note: in principle, I have no problem with restricting people's freedom based on moral reasons. For instance, I am convinced that pornography (child or not) /should/ be illegal and actively prosecuted (whether on the web or anywhere else). I just do not agree that proprietary software is evil (in the ethical sense of the word), or maybe /evil enough/, to justify restricting other people's freedom, like in this quote: ,---- | [Redacted] is non-free software, and people should not install it, or | suggest installing it, or even tell people it exists. `---- Note that precisely because of this, which I consider a warped understanding of freedom, I chose /not/ to use the term "free software", and if I have to do (since, as RMS rightly points out, "open-source" does not mean the same), I use the tongue-in-cheek term "free-as-in-FSF". OTOH, let me repeat: even though I disagree with the above quote, I /do/ agree with the /implication/ whose antecedent is the standpoint that proprietary software is morally evil and whose consequent is the above quote. I just do not consider proprietary software evil (or evil enough) to justify that antecedent (and hence the implication as a whole). 5. A long time ago (15 years or so), I read the "GNU Manifesto". In fact, I found it rather amusing: I thought that there are no more people believing in "post-scarcity world" and similar, socialist-utopistic (if this is the right term) things. (In fact, any promises of "paradise-on-earth" are at least suspicious. My country underwent at least three experiments involving similar promises, and all three were epic fails, two of them with many actual lives lost.) And, AFAIUC, FSF is rather left-wing-ish, and hence automatically suspicious for me. 6. That said, to be honest, I have to admit that I /do/ agree with RMS/FSF (I do not know enough to know of any ethical/political differences between these two entities) on /many/ things. For one, the current copyright law is /insane/, admittedly, much more insane than the idea of FSF's copyright papers. I believe that RMS might find the Middle Ages (when, according to my limited knowledge of history, the idea of "intellectual property" was completely unknown: knowledge was considered to belong to everyone) a much nicer time to live in. (OTOH, one thing I cannot fathom is that apparently there are many more open-source or even GPL-licensed projects out there, and FSF is the only one requiring anything more than just stating that some piece of software is GPL'd. Why? Again, I'd like to know the answer.) The question of how to fight the insanity of the current copyright mess is IMHO open, it /might/ be the case that the FSF way is not the worst one. And definitely, it is a hackish one (in the classical sense of the word "hack") - subverting the mechanisms of copyright law to do something that is clearly against the spirit of the said law, which is in reality authored by media corporations and not by the clueless politicians, is übercool. 7. I also have to say that I was quite astonished to learn that RMS actually believes in the notion of "natural law", which is rather unpopular nowadays (especially amongst left-wing people, if I'm not mistaken). This is something that I wholeheartedly agree with, even though I'm not really sure that I agree with him on whether copyleft (or freedom of sharing) /is/ an instance of the natural law. Maybe it's the other way round, that e.g. the right to prohibit people from disclosing source code of my software is natural law? Note: I write it only as an intellectual experiment, I personally suspect that RMS might be right (pun intended) here. OTOH, to get closer to your email: maybe the right of my descendants to make decisions about my work /is/ natural law? I just ask, I really don't know. 8. As you can see, I do not claim that FSF or RMS are "evil". As I hinted in my email, it /is/ possible that I do change my mind, though this would require some additional information (which I don't have, and which is not readily available, which is particularly strange) /and/ some serious thinking on my part. I even do not claim that FSF "has behaved unethically regarding the copyrights they have been handed for safekeeping. Or that [I] expect them to do so in future" - I only claim that (a) FSF behaves /strangely/, and this makes me suspicious, that (b) I don't generally trust left-wing(-ish) organizations, and that (c) I am utterly disappointed by some discussions on FSF's MLs, and want to distance myself from the jerkassery there (though I admit that such behavior is not common), and the fact that I do not want to sign the FSF papers is my (partly emotional, I admit) reaction to that. 9. To sum up: I understand that you ("you" as in "this mailing list", not "you" as in "David Kastrup") might (and maybe should) ignore me as a troll (which I sometimes tend to be... sorry!), but I'm genuinely interested in learning the answers to the questions I raised, in particular: (i) why is FSF so secretive about the copyright papers, that they are not available on the Internet? (ii) what are the exact consequences of signing the papers, and is it possible to withdraw the agreement for the FSF to have copyright on things I write (excluding, of course, things written/given away before said withdrawal)? (iii) why is "promoting proprietary software" not tolerated (and actively fought against) on FSF's MLs, and /at the same time/ hostility against people writing (in good faith, as I believe) about their "non-free" projects (related to the "free" software discussed on that ML!) is tolerated (and maybe even encouraged)? (iv) what are the reasons for the view that just releasing some software with a license like GPL, MIT license, LPPL or other is not enough to ensure that no-one would be able to "change his mind" about /already contributed/ software? I (obviously) cannot promise that I /will/ change my mind. But I can promise that I will be thinking really hard about the answers, if I get them. Regards, -- Marcin Borkowski http://octd.wmi.amu.edu.pl/en/Marcin_Borkowski Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science Adam Mickiewicz University _______________________________________________ auctex-devel mailing list auctex-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/auctex-devel