Ciaran O'Riordan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > This is quite an attitude change to past statments by RMS like > > "[...] I therefore find myself constrained to reject > > Creative Commons entirely." > > That quote has nothing to do with anything we're discussing here. There are > real issues to discuss here, so let's try to stay on topic.
Sorry. Did I misunderstand that FDL 1.3 approves conversion to a CC licence? Isn't it approving CC's chequered history and future a little? > (The situation that RMS was commenting on doesn't even exist anymore. CC > separated out the licences that RMS objected to, AFAICT.) I missed that specific change and I didn't find what happened to the SamplingPlus and Developing Countries licences. However, CC remains a broad label which also covers things opposed to free software and free manuals. Noah Slater <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Nov 04, 2008 at 01:04:53AM +0000, MJ Ray wrote: > > Free software needs free software documentation, but the FSF seems content > > to > > redefine "free" for documentation > > MJ Ray, are you arguing that "freedom" means the same in every context? Are > you > arguing that my freedoms under the United Kingdom's social contract should be > identical to my software freedoms? Firstly, no, clearly not. Our freedoms under the various rights Acts are far more wide-ranging. However, I don't see why free software documentation should be less free than free software. Secondly, please send personal messages off-list. > Thus, I think it's fine that the FSF defines documentation freedom differently > than it does software freedom, and in fact freedom of personal expression. Actually, last I saw, the FSF did not define documentation freedom at all and left us trying to rebuild that pig from the FSF-licence sausages which have been produced. For example, how does having one's past copylefted wiki contributions relicensed to CC form part of a "documentation freedom" concept? [...] > I feel you are purposefully misrepresenting the FSF on this matter. > [...] Again, I feel you are deliberately misrepresenting Stallman. I'm commenting as I feel. As far as possible, I give links so readers can decide for themselves whether they agree with the feelings that the quoted material stirred in me. If I were deliberately misrepresenting, I'd leave the links out, so reader can't check. (Noah Slater leaves the links out.) [...] > > FSF seems increasingly broken. Is it time for a developer-led organisation > > to > > fork its licences, so we can use "or later" again? > > Well then, why don't you spend less time slinging mud and using current > affairs > to badmouth the FSF, and more time being productive? I'd like to see whether there's wider interest in developer-led licence stewards, so I can decide whether opening my current work to more developers would be worthwhile, or a distracting waste of time. It's not possible to do productive work directly with the FSF on its licences because the stet-centred process is deliberately inaccessible and incompatible with free software communities. stet may be useful for lawyers and big corporations, but it doesn't collaborate well. Also, *question* FSF's actions (let alone critcise them) and dozens go off the deep at you. Regards, -- MJ Ray (slef) Webmaster for hire, statistician and online shop builder for a small worker cooperative http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ (Notice http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html) tel:+44-844-4437-237 _______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list Discussion@fsfeurope.org https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
