Re: [GNU-linux-libre] choosealicense.com fork with better wording, perhaps ?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 11/11/2014 05:22 PM, John Sullivan wrote: Good point. Here's their version: The GPL (V2 or V3) is a copyleft license that requires anyone who distributes your code or a derivative work to make the source available under the same terms. V3 is similar to V2, but further restricts use in hardware that forbids software alterations. And, here's my modified version: The GPL (V2 or V3) is a copyleft license that ensures that anyone who distributes your code or a derivative work will make the source available under the same terms. V3 is similar to V2, but ensures that any hardware it is used in will permit software modifications. (Personally, I don't think that requires is strong language in the same way that further restricts is, but I've removed it anyway.) *** I agree that requires here is a statement of a fact. If further restricts is replaced, then the whole paragraph loses its derogatory meaning. I would use ensures instead of requires, and prevents to replace further restricts, with the result: The GPL (v2 or v3) is a copyleft license that ensures anyone who distributes your code or a derivative work will make the source available under the same terms. V3 is similar to v2, but prevents use in hardware that forbids software alterations. The reason I want to propose that alternative is to avoid repeating the word ensures, and stick to the original style to insist on the problematic wording. == hk -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2 iQJ8BAEBCgBmBQJUYtFfXxSAAC4AKGlzc3Vlci1mcHJAbm90YXRpb25zLm9w ZW5wZ3AuZmlmdGhob3JzZW1hbi5uZXQ3MDM3QTJCNjlFNkMxQzA1NjI4RDUzOEZE OEU3QkQ4MDk0MUM4MjkzAAoJENjnvYCUHIKTOIYQAKMByqP2T5ZFyZeoNNiTkbjY bE3giawpRsLei5nTbd7v8QomkJlcnRlCydbYFrPjwkXftYHVy8l6EeyRx3E6og9d HOFRGf05IuNuhIWEguPqHpsMjgpQZxGIsZhPlpKOlcZsDotP4eu/uouZo+WvPdZN PnE4I+cS0ft5u3unnw8kC+uPA4ImvZBMfbBWTAYK1SQi8YyNcsqHXXb3cx50Kg0T 7qteyhQ+z3E1KqzjMNcLzcj9Iz4qlZ1O1ZXWs6nIbJ1tga+1ZChyOGa+eFd7Gn9h v5vLkZ05iosV3w/nHRC7GEqUsxq+1EL9VbIrhU8d/4MiHCQG7KekToMmCPC8LwWS MdR/8HUfdNRuz17tPyLgREHlVlsQtPqEv3TEjELOxkAa5+O89G2i19+OoC7HWWNG bKWED3WoM11lze7P4XMInwTeR++lZdS4rvyzmQhhHnuOLcXg1GmGVX+yoJSyMAUP 3MFA+G59udNxwLyD3V7sqmPE1Olnxq7t9JTtp/vW6qNz4pYu7jBS6hENS1LO2CpH wU4Txz+cye8MwYnqVccBCyAlPz6O0iA91QrDh+0y8km2L+J7b/hoUTHgXEwrREmZ d1r9R90dei4tczfSArBSSDgrZmlkSxEcHK7vJoCoXJ8EkpmkYBONIbIUxa1h0kqx 0YrNRRuMHCsiaBUluBdH =LkVr -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [GNU-linux-libre] choosealicense.com fork with better wording, perhaps ?
Le 13/10/2014 à 09h34, Riley Baird a écrit : On 26/09/14 05:17, Garreau, Alexandre wrote: Le 25/09/2014 à 00h06, Riley Baird a écrit : To take again your example: someone can probably (it’s an euphemism) increase your freedom in *so more many ways you can’t even wonder* alive than dead. Dead it’s just a pile of flesh, as you could obtain killing a simple animal, or even (bio)hacking with pluripotent inducted cells. Alive it’s quite surely an instance of the most fantastic and powerful autoimproving system produced by the universe. What about people that are not autoimproving or powerful? Is it ethical to kill them? Well, when I was saying “powerful”, it’s in the same meaning of a “x language/concept/software is powerful”, so “with a lot of potential”, and I was speaking at the scale of the universe, so that even a monkey in something damn powerful in relation with an infinity of void with some rocks. Ah, okay, I misunderstood your definition. If someone is autoimproving and powerful, they are likely to be able to increase my freedom. This is not true in all cases, and if we are being realistic, some people could take away my freedom, for example if they overthrew the government to replace it with a dictatorship. Yeah, some people can exerce power. But that doesn’t stop that (a) it’s still human being who are potentially useful/source of freedom *on some other side* in parallel, (b) they exerce a power into the context of a hierarchy, so the problem is not them but the hierarchy. If you delete them, hierarchy stays, and someone else will take their place, and nothing would have change, except maybe some nasty details on you, because you killed someone, especially someone powerful, and that people could consider you could keep doing that. But even if we consider that all humans are better alive than dead to me (and hence there is no such thing as freedom to use their flesh in cooking), then surely they would be better able to directly serve my freedom if I put them into slavery? Again, I'm not advocating this, but this is an example of how one person can have freedom at the expense of another person's freedom. They would serve your power, not freedom, thus “you” as an element of a hierarchy, not as an unique and particular individual with a will, a personality, a mind, emotions, etc. That also mean that you are forced to follow historic rules that until now allowed hierarchy to stay up (rules of gender, sexuality, religion/moral/well-thought/wathever, “races”, “nation”, capital, property, classes, etc.), otherwise you could fall down in a very fatal way. It means that you are never completely master of your masterness. And even when you —you between some billions of others trying the best they can— try to go up, you’re just following the general, widespread and essential (for people not to revolt against hierarchy in itself) illusion of having a possibility to go up in hierarchy, while the higher and stronger the hierarchy, the unlikely someone is going to move from one place to another. While when others are free, it means everyone is making the others more free, so it can increase exponentially. Thus, everyone becoming more free as everyone else is working that way, people are going to get more free more rapidly, and thus to be useful to your freedom much quicker. Imagine two situations: a centralized and hierarchized distribution system… and a P2P one. In the former you could maybe, potentially, in 1 chances over a billion, control what happens, and get the comfortable illusion that’s the best situation for you, in the latter, people would be going to exchange not only with you but also between each other… Which one is the more likely to serve you the better? Objectivity does not suppose an objective subject - in fact, it does not suppose a subject at all. If there were no conscious beings, an objective reality could still exist. *** That's debatable, but humans have been doing it since they have the capacity to do so, and still didn't reach any conclusion. Hopefully we'll take less than 2 years. :) Can you imagine a universe with no conscious beings? If you believe in the Big Bang Theory, then such a time must have existed. In the hypothesis objective reality wouldnât exist without Subject (idealism) the Big Bang Theory would be a conception of the Subject, it would still be, but would just be dependent of it. Would the subject themselves exist objectively, or would they also need to be perceived? In our case we are conscious of ourselves, so this question is useless. Do you objectively know that you are conscious of yourself? I think, therefore I am. Yet you can’t prove what you see is real, because to prove anything you need material, and you can’t have material if you assume it is not real. Thus the fact objective reality exist can’t be a proven truth but only a postulate, an useful (even better: essential) assumption. I agree
Re: [GNU-linux-libre] choosealicense.com fork with better wording, perhaps ?
On 26/09/14 05:17, Garreau, Alexandre wrote: Le 25/09/2014 à 00h06, Riley Baird a écrit : To take again your example: someone can probably (itâs an euphemism) increase your freedom in *so more many ways you canât even wonder* alive than dead. Dead itâs just a pile of flesh, as you could obtain killing a simple animal, or even (bio)hacking with pluripotent inducted cells. Alive itâs quite surely an instance of the most fantastic and powerful autoimproving system produced by the universe. What about people that are not autoimproving or powerful? Is it ethical to kill them? Well, when I was saying âpowerfulâ, itâs in the same meaning of âx language/concept/software is powerfulâ, so âwith a lot of potentialâ, and I was speaking at the scale of the universe, so that even a monkey in something damn powerful in relation with an infinity of void with some rocks. Ah, okay, I misunderstood your definition. If someone is autoimproving and powerful, they are likely to be able to increase my freedom. This is not true in all cases, and if we are being realistic, some people could take away my freedom, for example if they overthrew the government to replace it with a dictatorship. But even if we consider that all humans are better alive than dead to me (and hence there is no such thing as freedom to use their flesh in cooking), then surely they would be better able to directly serve my freedom if I put them into slavery? Again, I'm not advocating this, but this is an example of how one person can have freedom at the expense of another person's freedom. If he expressed opinion it would be free speech, if it expressed scientific ideas (much closer) it would be free science (like when Galileo said Earth was rotating around Sun), now itâs not a scientific idea but an *implementation*. He didnât published a paper on RSA, he implemented it, itâs different. Though why people initially tried to censor him was for the diffusion of the scientific idea more than implementation. But yet this isnât free speech, itâs not like saying âgovernment is doing this and you donât know!â, itâs more like saying âhey, look how everything in astronomy look simpler if you take Sun as center!â. Free science is free speech. When Galileo said that the Earth rotates around the Sun, he was censored because this idea contradicted the beliefs of the Church. Science often has political implications - consider climate change, for example. If publishing the results of climate research were forbidden, it would be censorship for a political purpose, even if the research did not state an opinion, only experimental results. Facts are much better than opinions in guiding public policy. To have a rational opinion on anything, you need facts. Objectivity does not suppose an objective subject - in fact, it does not suppose a subject at all. If there were no conscious beings, an objective reality could still exist. *** That's debatable, but humans have been doing it since they have the capacity to do so, and still didn't reach any conclusion. Hopefully we'll take less than 2 years. :) Can you imagine a universe with no conscious beings? If you believe in the Big Bang Theory, then such a time must have existed. In the hypothesis objective reality wouldnât exist without Subject (idealism) the Big Bang Theory would be a conception of the Subject, it would still be, but would just be dependent of it. Would the subject themselves exist objectively, or would they also need to be perceived? In our case we are conscious of ourselves, so this question is useless. Do you objectively know that you are conscious of yourself? Yet you canât prove what you see is real, because to prove anything you need material, and you canât have material if you assume it is not real. Thus the fact objective reality exist canât be a proven truth but only a postulate, an useful (even better: essential) assumption. I agree that you can't prove that what you see is real. However, I disagree that you need material to prove anything. You can prove the existence of your consciousness - I think therefore I am. Itâs not a proof, itâs an observation. That doesnât need proof since you observe it. Everything that is innate in your brain is true according your mind rules (for instance: basic maths), and so you donât need to prove that, because itâs not a fact but a conception of things. Then this doesnât mean itâs true according âexterior observable ârealityââ rules, just as lot of advanced physics theories contradicts our innate notion of space. Basic maths might not be correct - it relies on premises. For example, Peano arithmetic defines natural number arithmetic through several axioms. We can say, that basic maths is true *given* these premises, provided that these premises do not contradict each other. The knowledge that consciousness exists is
Re: [GNU-linux-libre] choosealicense.com fork with better wording, perhaps ?
Le 25/09/2014 à 00h06, Riley Baird a écrit : To take again your example: someone can probably (it’s an euphemism) increase your freedom in *so more many ways you can’t even wonder* alive than dead. Dead it’s just a pile of flesh, as you could obtain killing a simple animal, or even (bio)hacking with pluripotent inducted cells. Alive it’s quite surely an instance of the most fantastic and powerful autoimproving system produced by the universe. What about people that are not autoimproving or powerful? Is it ethical to kill them? Well, when I was saying “powerful”, it’s in the same meaning of “x language/concept/software is powerful”, so “with a lot of potential”, and I was speaking at the scale of the universe, so that even a monkey in something damn powerful in relation with an infinity of void with some rocks. Added to that, there’s only one kind of human which is not autoimproving: a corpse. Almost everything is socially constructed and acquired trough experience in human (and that’s why it’s so powerful: because all the power is in hot/live-adaptable software) so a human which is not able to acquire anything wouldn’t acquire the minimum to keep its brain working, and would die. I could mention the experiment, tried several times in story, always of a king or some important figure, to find the “natural language” of mankind (generally thinking to something like greek or latin), and asking to grow human babies in perfect conditions, with all heat, love, food, comfort, etc. they need, but *never* speaking with them, nor communicating using any form of language. Generally, the babies died without any explanation. The brain just stopped working. Therefore, since all the value of human freedom is in the fact it can live-adapt, and that without being able of that it dies, any human has already an intrinsic giant power. Then you could argue the minimum found in a human in potential is sometimes lower than what is found in some non-human animals, like monkeys or elephants… But first such humans are probably really rare, maybe even not existing: *lower* means that it would have *everything* lower, but human intellect (and even larger: animals intellect) is so much complex and has so much features even our greatest science abilities didn’t completely determined what it does and how it does it… It’s really unlikely we know enough about any human being to say it has less abilities: we thought that of autism/asperger, and it was damn wrong, we thought it of many “diseases” which finally wasn’t. Every human is different, we just have some who are so much that we aren’t able to understand them, or worst, to make them understand us and our society. How can we judge something we aren’t even able to include in our society? Since individuals are socially built, we can’t know if they can’t do something because they really can’t in any way or because we just ignore the way we should teach them. Btw we use not to kill such intellectually animals for these same reasons. Second even if it’s really dumb, so much I would be able to build a superior AI (“superior” meaning “completely able to simulate it /plus/ even more”), I wouldn’t kill even your dog, firstly because it would really badly affect all members of society emotionally attached to it (and even this not being rational, it’s sane, natural and indivisible From the way human work), comprised myself (because of this fantastic feature called empathy, making social enough animals feel the suffer they see, very useful to automatically, instantly and enormously increase the probability of survival of all individual in any group of animals (even of separate species)). And what is true for a dog is certainly a lot more for any human, whatever its intellectual abilities. Even if I don’t share the opinion of many on copyright legitimacy, I would notice go against it is not free speech: free speech is the authority-unregulated expression of *opinions*. Just transmitting others’ work is not an opinion, at least not your, thus it’s not free speech. Yet it’s still legal to express the same opinion of someone else who expressed it in a copyrighted work. I think that free speech is much more than the right to express your opinions. Wouldn't you agree that Phil Zimmermann's exporting of the PGP source code was free speech? If he expressed opinion it would be free speech, if it expressed scientific ideas (much closer) it would be free science (like when Galileo said Earth was rotating around Sun), now it’s not a scientific idea but an *implementation*. He didn’t published a paper on RSA, he implemented it, it’s different. Though why people initially tried to censor him was for the diffusion of the scientific idea more than implementation. But yet this isn’t free speech, it’s not like saying “government is doing this and you don’t know!”, it’s more like saying “hey, look how everything in astronomy look simpler if you take Sun as center!”. Yet I agree the
Re: [GNU-linux-libre] choosealicense.com fork with better wording, perhaps ?
Because you have to contextualize it in a social context: when he says “amplifies/restrict� freedom, he’s not only speaking about your, but anyone’s, the whole society’s, of each individual in it. Agreed, this is what I was saying before. If we wish to preserve our individual freedom, we have to give up the ability to take others' freedom away. To take again your example: someone can probably (it’s an euphemism) increase your freedom in *so more many ways you can’t even wonder* alive than dead. Dead it’s just a pile of flesh, as you could obtain killing a simple animal, or even (bio)hacking with pluripotent inducted cells. Alive it’s quite surely an instance of the most fantastic and powerful autoimproving system produced by the universe. What about people that are not autoimproving or powerful? Is it ethical to kill them? Even if I don’t share the opinion of many on copyright legitimacy, I would notice go against it is not free speech: free speech is the authority-unregulated expression of *opinions*. Just transmitting others’ work is not an opinion, at least not your, thus it’s not free speech. Yet it’s still legal to express the same opinion of someone else who expressed it in a copyrighted work. I think that free speech is much more than the right to express your opinions. Wouldn't you agree that Phil Zimmermann's exporting of the PGP source code was free speech? Objectivity does not suppose an objective subject - in fact, it does not suppose a subject at all. If there were no conscious beings, an objective reality could still exist. *** That's debatable, but humans have been doing it since they have the capacity to do so, and still didn't reach any conclusion. Hopefully we'll take less than 2 years. :) Can you imagine a universe with no conscious beings? If you believe in the Big Bang Theory, then such a time must have existed. In the hypothesis objective reality wouldn’t exist without Subject (idealism) the Big Bang Theory would be a conception of the Subject, it would still be, but would just be dependent of it. Would the subject themselves exist objectively, or would they also need to be perceived? Yet you can’t prove what you see is real, because to prove anything you need material, and you can’t have material if you assume it is not real. Thus the fact objective reality exist can’t be a proven truth but only a postulate, an useful (even better: essential) assumption. I agree that you can't prove that what you see is real. However, I disagree that you need material to prove anything. You can prove the existence of your consciousness - I think therefore I am. Even if some things are subjective, we cannot say that *everything* is subjective, as it leads to a contradiction: Assume that everything is subjective. Is everything subjective? If so, then we have just made an objective statement, which contradicts our original assumption. If not, then something must be objective, which again contradicts our original assumption. And no, if I'm producing a guide on choosing a free software license, I don't want to hear about what proprietary software vendors have to say about it. Understandable. And, if you're right, really, you shouldn't have to. However, note that this is a moral issue, and all morality, to some degree, involves an arbitrary choice of what to value. No it’s not up to moral but to ethic. Moral —coming from latin /mores/: habits— is the value of “Good� relative to a specific culture. While ethic —coming from greek “ethike�: a science of what is good— is the value of “Good� in absolute, not relative to any culture but objectively developed after the study of human. You cannot base an objective morality upon the study of human. Why draw the line at human? Why not include certain animals? Why not limit it to individual races, as Social Darwinists do? Freedom being essentially defined after will, it matches happiness. While I, too, support taking freedom to be the highest objective, I'll just point out that this is not always true. Consider people who are manipulated through guilt into doing something that they would not want to do otherwise. They are still following their will, but it is not bringing them happiness. Equality (to distinguish from “similar� or “identical�) being defined as being not superior nor inferior negates hierarchy, thus authority thus matches Freedom. The problem with equality is that it needs to be enforced, which requires someone in a position of authority to enforce it, who by definition is now unequal to everyone else. If we are arguing from a communist perspective, from each according to his ability is incompatible with freedom. If I do not wish to work according to my ability, then I am not free to do so. (I might be wrong with my understanding of anarcho-communism here - if so, please correct me.) Every value of Good, at the
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-
Re: [GNU-linux-libre] choosealicense.com fork with better wording, perhaps ?
Riley Baird (Orthogonal) orthogo...@librewrt.org writes: On 05/08/14 12:10, Felipe Sanches wrote: Is there something similar to http://choosealicense.com/ but with language better aligned to the mission of the free software movement ? I don't know, but personally, I think that a fork over something like this would be a bad idea. We don't fork every program that uses the word Linux instead of GNU/Linux to refer to the operating system in its documentation, for example. If you're concerned about it, perhaps you could write to the maintainer and ask them to use neutral terms (e.g. FLOSS instead of OSS on their main page). Well, there are a lot of other problems with the license chooser in addition to that. It is pretty anti-copyleft. We submitted a patch to fix the factual description of the GPL and it was rejected. For example, the choice to present the GPL's protections as restrictions/requirements is a loaded one. -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 ?
Well, there are a lot of other problems with the license chooser in addition to that. It is pretty anti-copyleft. We submitted a patch to fix the factual description of the GPL and it was rejected. What part of their description is untrue? This is all the information I could find on the GPL on their website: The GPL (V2 or V3) is a copyleft license that requires anyone who distributes your code or a derivative work to make the source available under the same terms. V3 is similar to V2, but further restricts use in hardware that forbids software alterations. Linux, Git, and WordPress use the GPL. How to apply this license Create a text file (typically named LICENSE or LICENSE.txt) in the root of your source code and copy the text of the license into the file. Note: The Free Software Foundation recommends taking the additional step of adding a boilerplate notice to the top of each file. The boilerplate can be found at the end of the license. Required Disclose Source License and copyright notice State Changes Permitted Commercial Use Distribution Modification Patent Grant Private Use Forbidden Hold Liable Sublicensing For example, the choice to present the GPL's protections as restrictions/requirements is a loaded one. I don't think that saying that the protections are requirements is loaded language. For example, license and copyright notice is held to be a requirement, and this is still listen as a requirement on the MIT license's page. (That being said, there are some requirements of the GPL which they do not list, e.g. 2a and 2c of GPLv2)
Re: [GNU-linux-libre] choosealicense.com fork with better wording, perhaps ?
Riley Baird asked: What part of their description is untrue? One example: Presenting the anti-tivoization provisions in the GPLv3 as a restriction. 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.
Re: [GNU-linux-libre] choosealicense.com fork with better wording, perhaps ?
On 05/08/14 12:10, Felipe Sanches wrote: Is there something similar to http://choosealicense.com/ but with language better aligned to the mission of the free software movement ? I don't know, but personally, I think that a fork over something like this would be a bad idea. We don't fork every program that uses the word Linux instead of GNU/Linux to refer to the operating system in its documentation, for example. If you're concerned about it, perhaps you could write to the maintainer and ask them to use neutral terms (e.g. FLOSS instead of OSS on their main page).
Re: [GNU-linux-libre] choosealicense.com fork with better wording, perhaps ?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 08/04/2014 10:10 PM, Felipe Sanches wrote: Is there something similar to http://choosealicense.com/ but with language better aligned to the mission of the free software movement ? GNU.org has had a better license guide for a long time (I think it predates the website you're talking about): https://gnu.org/licenses/license-recommendations.html - -- 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) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJT4LTLAAoJELP1a+89AVMCEaUIAKt35LX8Yv1Om2cV1RDPO7pv S8RSsHafbzlDPjlvci7nEIrR0x0Fb0RhbcJzFoU81s27Z3+uSG+4qiGJNTjMLP73 ISx6Li9MZ6VJvDXncHPALu2CcHZ1pWnc6FkiHA1L5Nx17N4oXrknjEEAcJZd7hwc g+n3OnAh90IJJQo1OImp5DJu+Oj9SdvKzWdTG9hysq1KIv9yIXVKCDvObauOE7nK Yebh19qx28Bvu1luKcY3+2Dp3Xd+LyFsK74fKSeAtdpzI10zbAv+3QroVtw9SaXY KEr1Pc+7fVpI0nrKyzv4Q5+l3gCg5iAK+Sasbw6QRHBeULqpFmhXdCpsrilj0KM= =G08m -END PGP SIGNATURE-
