Re: [GNU-linux-libre] choosealicense.com fork with better wording, perhaps ?
On 19/08/14 07:36, Jason Self wrote: Riley Baird asked: What part of their description is untrue? One example: Presenting the anti-tivoization provisions in the GPLv3 as a restriction. But, like copyleft, it still is a restriction, albeit a good one. If you listen to Tom Preston-Werner's (GitHub co-founder) anti-GPL keynote from OSCON his position on the GPL will become clear and shouldn't be surprising that the website reflects this. Ah, okay, this could be a way to convince people to use permissive licenses while pretending to be objective. (I haven't watched the video, so I can't be sure, but I'll assume you're right.) Someone has pointed out that the FSF has a license guide already [1]. However, this guide has a strong bias towards copyleft. Personally, I think that the community would benefit from a guide written from an objective point of view - getting people from both sides of the debate to write their side, and then combining the pieces into a guide that lets the user see the best arguments of both sides. That being said, there are already a lot of articles about this, so it isn't really a major concern for me. You might be justified in making a fork if you feel that the site is actively trying to stop the GPL, and if you decide to, then I wish you good luck. [1] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-recommendations.html
Re: [GNU-linux-libre] choosealicense.com fork with better wording, perhaps ?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 08/19/2014 03:14 AM, Riley Baird wrote: On 19/08/14 07:36, Jason Self wrote: Someone has pointed out that the FSF has a license guide already [1]. However, this guide has a strong bias towards copyleft. Personally, I think that the community would benefit from a guide written from an objective point of view - getting people from both sides of the debate to write their side, and then combining the pieces into a guide that lets the user see the best arguments of both sides. Benefit in what way? If you're making software libre because you care about freedom, the FSF's guide is perfect. For such a person, I can't imagine any advantages for permissive licenses that guide doesn't already cover. The only people I can think of who would want to use permissive licenses in any other case are people who are making some of their software libre for purely practical reasons and don't want it to affect their development of proprietary software, and people who think copyleft is unethical. I don't see any reason for us to deal with the former group (that's the open source crowd's department and not very productive for us), and for the latter group, they're not going to consider copyleft at all. - -- Julian Marchant Email: onp...@riseup.net, onp...@openmailbox.org GnuPG keys: 0x3D015302, 0xD0AF3FA4 XMPP: onpon4 @ riseup.net Diaspora: onpon4 @ nerdpol.ch Website: https://onpon4.github.io Protect your privacy with GnuPG: https://emailselfdefense.fsf.org -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJT8zcHAAoJELP1a+89AVMCZqoIAJVa/w/Z7PhMChB7BI22Rzav CWZxTsU1Y93AZ0uqtH2EIwOJG584aPqV3L9rKdG4g95uRmJglWCbhIn5YJW6M50V 9FD7y75Ip9fHQfvqe8Rf7GvHkx1KFPCNbgra+SQWOVhZL0ZKEtEhxBg5wq87K3t4 nIyK9uGIPKthtV47RcNKvY/RcW2yESG6OK0HRs7ADsdfcYHRCYuNATbRMCNDDDnZ qwre41OA6OTs0X3Lns6XsL1yh2nj/ssMJ3HKrtearX2VXMFNmc8eWVS7NQnmDZJl RAp+OFL6krRh6gC0Qf4D2WxTNE8GEDmvtoOQ+FuquNM7PoM1enAS8SvASaGlaJA= =IC1a -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [GNU-linux-libre] choosealicense.com fork with better wording, perhaps ?
Riley Baird said: is a restriction The only way I can think of it to consider is a restriction is if Tivoization were considered a legitimate activity to begin with. Framing copyleft as a restriction is not a good idea. This goes back to what John said. As an example, it's not as if TiVo Inc. can't use GPLv3 stuff or that they the license somehow restricts them from doing so. Rather, they can and should use it (everyone should.) They just need to pass on those same freedoms to others. It's probably better to position/frame the GPL and copyleft as protecting software freedom rather than restricting it.
Re: [GNU-linux-libre] choosealicense.com fork with better wording, perhaps ?
The only way I can think of it to consider is a restriction is if Tivoization were considered a legitimate activity to begin with. Definition of restrict from Wiktionary: 1. To restrain within bounds; to limit; to confine; as, to restrict worlds to a particular meaning; to restrict a patient to a certain diet. Making murder a crime is a restriction, it's one I agree with and one that's purpose is to protect the freedom of others but that doesn't change the fact that it's a restriction. The anti-tivoization clause in GPLv3 is also a restriction that tries to protect freedom. Framing copyleft as a restriction is not a good idea. This goes back to what John said. If you agree with the restriction then you might want to note how you think it will help protect freedom but if you want to stay unbiased I don't see a problem just calling it a restriction. It should probably be changed to say restricts distribution instead of restricts use though. The only big problem with the wording of choosealicense.com seems to be calling the licenses OSS which is biased in favor of Open Source (it also has non-free Google Analytics spyware but that's unrelated.)
Re: [GNU-linux-libre] choosealicense.com fork with better wording, perhaps ?
Riley Baird said: For someone who hasn't decided whether they care about free software or open source (or both), it would help them to make their mind up without feeling that they are reading propaganda. Framing copyleft as a restriction is often propaganda used by the anti-copyleft crowd though so the site already contains some of that.
Re: [GNU-linux-libre] choosealicense.com fork with better wording, perhaps ?
On 20/08/14 06:58, Jason Self wrote: Riley Baird said: For someone who hasn't decided whether they care about free software or open source (or both), it would help them to make their mind up without feeling that they are reading propaganda. Framing copyleft as a restriction is often propaganda used by the anti-copyleft crowd though so the site already contains some of that. But, like ag ag01 said, it is still a restriction, in the same way that the government forbids murder. Most people would react well to being told that their freedom to murder would be taken from them, because it would mean that they would live in a safer society. You could use this line of reasoning to convince people that copyleft is a good idea. Also, it is worth noting that even the preamble to the GPL acknowledges that it is imposing restrictions: To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions that forbid anyone to deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender the rights.
Re: [GNU-linux-libre] choosealicense.com fork with better wording, perhaps ?
Jason Self ja...@bluehome.net writes: Riley Baird said: is a restriction The only way I can think of it to consider is a restriction is if Tivoization were considered a legitimate activity to begin with. Framing copyleft as a restriction is not a good idea. This goes back to what John said. As an example, it's not as if TiVo Inc. can't use GPLv3 stuff or that they the license somehow restricts them from doing so. Rather, they can and should use it (everyone should.) They just need to pass on those same freedoms to others. It's probably better to position/frame the GPL and copyleft as protecting software freedom rather than restricting it. Right, and as preventing others from restricting access to your software. Given only one tag line to describe the GPL, I care about sharing improvements is really not it. Probably something more like I want my software to always be free for everyone. Plus, the GPL choice links to v2. It should link to v3. -john -- John Sullivan | Executive Director, Free Software Foundation GPG Key: 61A0963B | http://status.fsf.org/johns | http://fsf.org/blogs/RSS Do you use free software? Donate to join the FSF and support freedom at http://www.fsf.org/register_form?referrer=8096.
Re: [GNU-linux-libre] choosealicense.com fork with better wording, perhaps ?
Jason Self ja...@bluehome.net writes: Riley Baird said: is a restriction The only way I can think of it to consider is a restriction is if Tivoization were considered a legitimate activity to begin with. Framing copyleft as a restriction is not a good idea. This goes back to what John said. As an example, it's not as if TiVo Inc. can't use GPLv3 stuff or that they the license somehow restricts them from doing so. Rather, they can and should use it (everyone should.) They just need to pass on those same freedoms to others. It's probably better to position/frame the GPL and copyleft as protecting software freedom rather than restricting it. Right, and as preventing others from restricting access to your software. Given only one tag line to describe the GPL, I care about sharing improvements is really not it. Probably something more like I want my software to always be free for everyone. Plus, the GPL choice links to v2. It should link to v3. -john While I don't like to see forks when we can avoid it, I think this would be a good reason to fork. In response to this, I'm starting a Don't fork me on GitHub campaign (don't know how receptive it would be). An example is on the libreCMC project page [1]. Note that we clearly state that the software does not have other restrictions, but we do want to inform people that github is not great for free software. If anyone has some input, please feel free to share. [1] libreCMC project page - http://librecmc.org/librecmc/index -- Robert Call (Bob) http://librecmc.org FSF Member #8115
Re: [GNU-linux-libre] choosealicense.com fork with better wording, perhaps ?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 08/19/2014 06:09 PM, Riley Baird wrote: freedom to murder *** Wait, what? Look, you need to learn about ethics. Specifically, you need to understand the difference between positive freedom and negative freedom. Software freedom is about positive freedom, i.e. not about restrictions. Neoliberal, neocon, libertarian-Randian propagandas are all about negative freedom, i.e. the freedom of an individual to do anything they like, including, e.g. to terminate other people's freedom (as in your example: murder). As long as you can't make this difference, you cannot grasp the concept of software freedom. Objectivity is itself propaganda: it supposes an objective subject, which is a contradiction. One can tend to objectivity, but since the XXth Century and the Theory of Relativity, science knows that the observer influences the observation. So in any case, what you tell about licensing is necessarily propaganda. Journalist objectivity is said to tell the facts. But how you tell the facts, and what facts you tell (and therefore, what facts you omit) frame a discourse in a certain way. If you want to make an objective account of free software licenses, you must start with understanding the underlying concepts. You can't be objective about something if you can't understand it. When some people reject Evolution, they can't be objective. They simply reject Evolution. Now, one can prefer Lynn Margulis' Theory of Evolution to Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution, and that's a different matter. But you can't say objectively something like: Man comes from monkey who comes from a tree. That's misunderstanding Darwin's Theory of Evolution. In the same way, you can't say that the GPL restricts people's freedom-to-restrict-other-people's-freedom: that's not objective, and that's non-sense. That said, I do think that the user interface of choosealicense.com is a good way for someone to choose a license, and license-recommendations.html is a different thing entirely, not only content-wise, but primarily at the level of user experience. Maybe the FSF should fork the site and rectify the propaganda to lean on the side of positive freedom. Another note on freedom to murder: that's the kind of propaganda that is pervasive in our globalizing civilization to justify all kinds of dumbass bullying corporate agenda. It's like saying: in order to allow the construction industry to increase their profit--and support their freedom to profit, we should bomb a city or two once in a while. It's obviously wrong, and confusing ends and means, and reversing the purpose of anything: let's kill people to solve the unemployment issue. WTF. == hk -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2 iQJ8BAEBCgBmBQJT88huXxSAAC4AKGlzc3Vlci1mcHJAbm90YXRpb25zLm9w ZW5wZ3AuZmlmdGhob3JzZW1hbi5uZXQ3MDM3QTJCNjlFNkMxQzA1NjI4RDUzOEZE OEU3QkQ4MDk0MUM4MjkzAAoJENjnvYCUHIKTgxsQALZPo0Sw64J3OEEBb/vKtRKW 59NQteSuU1GB+W28hjWG9c1QfG97zYJX82e8DSuRSeUkoE/eAeWBbffjGA2S70r3 4hnVTlL37Umv/RKyNoGtJOuYo4EJqQWqSq+WF+3wrL/rPUygFL1aRGnaIFZ6SsGn sLANonemNvxq1Sqdv3fWqPgY/W+I2/aeTPT4QoPQ2zjzEvFkA7nnWZix48WvWngM PVwkUxFYhJ3uZrc55NioTgSdDjPTNXPUmMtrX3zkvMyrsRQLgNLb3XxMr+E87tHf T7E1o/nHPXb5iOi65FcEluzP6urNRgAeKfEi96WiJJW78bkLb/DI+olhj9EzFEID FmGC/JwuqdJvd5A3q1sLjdUZYGXvrA2EjHuKl8g2mZHTzDV1i/rnUHb65RjO1oou 7hjhdxHl8LQuyWQnGJ2aGZsqQS+DK1ysDjOFt9Db0aU9zD1VfjGM3KwXbHlYcqFg 5BeXA9zCMWkdR5xWqsS6ybbxyEmv9giqngMX0meYBZSI7XMqhtGLozkYw6nbNwGN AcpworDygIQEzTLiouP/VVelPMGt3PF2lWMz4vf1pCKArtLHPPCv+vHQR3f8sfhz OlE+9wC2lhMbEg185Mdypo6xiMYxRYrpMivRmtCbT93cC1IzMVEuk80JaCw2aeEJ G3O4iAc5IO/2brrC0rTG =KS+f -END PGP SIGNATURE-
