Re: [GNU-linux-libre] choosealicense.com fork with better wording, perhaps ?

[hellekin]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512

On 11/18/2014 06:29 PM, John Sullivan wrote:
> 
> I don't like "prevents use" -- that's also an obstacle, a negative
> sounding thing. How about going back to "ensures" for that part, and
> switching to "guarantees" for the first use of "ensures"?
>

That would become:

The GPL (v2 or v3) is a copyleft license that guarantees 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 any
hardware it is used in will also permit software alterations under
identical conditions.

==
hk

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2
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=OmZr
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] choosealicense.com fork with better wording, perhaps ?

[John Sullivan]

hellekin  writes:

> 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.
>

I don't like "prevents use" -- that's also an obstacle, a negative
sounding thing. How about going back to "ensures" for that part, and
switching to "guarantees" for the first use of "ensures"?

-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
.

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] choosealicense.com fork with better wording, perhaps ?

[hellekin]

-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
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=LkVr
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] choosealicense.com fork with better wording, perhaps ?

[John Sullivan]

Riley Baird  writes:

 In that case, "permissive" licenses also include restrictions --
 but
 they are not described as such.
>>>
>>> The choosealicense.com page for the MIT license actually does list
>>> the
>>> requirement to keep a copy of the license and all copyright notices
>>> as a
>>> restriction.
>> 
>> Yes, it does, using softer language. This same mode of language
>> should
>> be used in the GPL description. Rather than "requires" and "further
>> restricts". 
>
> 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'm happy to submit this as a pull request, if you think the language
> okay, but before I do, I would like to know if this change in language
> would be sufficient to prevent a fork, or if there are other language
> problems with the site.
>

I think your version is definitely an improvement and it would be great
to submit it as a pull request. Thanks!

-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
.

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] choosealicense.com fork with better wording, perhaps ?

[Garreau, Alexandre]

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
>> “ 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 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?
>> 
>> 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

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] choosealicense.com fork with better wording, perhaps ?

[Riley Baird]

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 “
> 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.

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 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!”.

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 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?
> 
> 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 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".
> 
> It’s not a proof, it’s an observation. That doesn’t 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 don’t need to
> prove that, because it’s not a fact but a conception of things. Then
> this doesn’t mean it’s true according “exterior observable 
> ‘reality’”
> 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

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] choosealicense.com fork with better wording, perhaps ?

[Riley Baird]

On 25/09/14 03:01, hellekin wrote:
> On 09/22/2014 08:53 PM, Riley Baird wrote:
>>> Murder is not a freedom, it's a crime.  Freedom amplifies
>>> possibilities, and does not restrict them.
>
>> If freedom is that which amplifies possibilities, but does not
>> restrict them, then why doesn't murder fit this description?
>
>> If I am able to murder someone to use their flesh in cooking
>
> *** then *they* cannot exercise their freedom, can they?  Are you
> trolling, or trying to be a psychopath?  If "your" freedom is
> entirely objective, then sure, you can think stuff like "I am free
> to raze the mountain, frack the land, cut the rainforest, nuke your
> city, and genocide the Yasuni to prospect oil".  Well no, it's not
> objective, we share a planet.  Theory tends to reach hard limits
> when put in practice. Psychopathy is a way to keep the world
> theoretical.

Remember, I was not saying that this freedom is a good thing, merely
that it can exist if we don't stop it. Some people *are* free to raze
the mountain, frack the land, cut the rainforest, nuke your city, and
genocide the Yasuni to prospect oil at the moment. A person should
have the greatest level of freedom possible that prevents them from
taking away others' freedom.

>> Yes, but you haven't established why helping the authors make
>> money in an artificial marketplace is more important than
>> protecting my free speech.
>
> *** If you consider parroting an exercise of free speech, you
> probably don't need free speech in the first place.

*Everyone* needs free speech, otherwise it is constantly under threat.

> On the other hand, authors today can make a living by giving away
> their work, for the reasons I mentioned earlier.  I repeat, that's
> not for everybody, but indeed, it's more akin to symbiosis than to
> parasitism: if you like a creation, you're more likely to provide
> for the creator, than if you don't.  In a society where people live
> together, and not only juxtaposed to each other in their
> psychopathic world, it actually happens like this.  Only by ways of
> propaganda are we led to believe, by people who stole from creators
> in the first place, that things work otherwise, and that only
> protected works in a competitive environment prevail.

Agreed. I'll also point out that you can make money from libre music
by doing things like live concerts too.

> If you look closely at the music industry, to take an easy target,
> the drawers of big companies are full of artists waiting to be
> discovered who, if they were to "freely express themselves" without
> their contracted label, who cast the shadow of their talent over
> stars that the companies spent millions to market.  This is also
> true of multinational corporations, that buy competitors to
> "disappear" their products.  In the land of free speech, the freer
> one has the biggest megaphone.

But, with effort, it is possible to get your own big microphone. Crowd
funding is an example of how that happens.

>> Opera does not allow distribution of the browser without
>> restriction.
>
> *** So, you agree with me.

You said "there are industries formed around distributing
"sourceless" software without restriction.  It's called freeware, and
the Opera browser is a good example of that."

>> So, it seems that we have to choose between two freedoms: freedom
>> of speech, and practical ability to study how (all) software
>> works. I'd prefer the one that can be worked around legally.
>
> *** You're still trying to turn freedom into a commodity.  I don't
> see how these two aspects, expression and inquiry, are opposed
> anyway.

What do you mean when you say that I am trying to turn freedom into a
commodity.

Expression and enquiry are opposed within software because

>> 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.
>
> *** I don't think the Big Bang is anymore satisfying an explanation
> than the existence of god.  And yes, a universe without conscious
> beings is pretty much at our fingertips, given the stockpiles of
> nukes, anti-riot police, terrorism laws, and all-out war on
> sustainability that the "world leaders" are promoting and letting
> proliferate.

Okay, great, so we have a world without conscious beings. Would that
world cease to exist once the last conscious being was killed? If not,
then reality must be objective.

>> Belief in the Judeo-Christian God requires belief in an
>> approximately 6000 year old Earth, if we are to take the Bible
>> literally.
>
> *** Fortunately, only a lunatic fringe takes the Bible literally.
> That's where Intelligent Design meets American Atheists.  But I
> believe a majority of people who read it actually knows how to
> read, and can understand symbolism--or at least not take mere
> translations to the letter.  Beyond any authorship or actual
> contents, as the Italians say: traduttore, traditore (transla

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] choosealicense.com fork with better wording, perhaps ?

[Garreau, Alexandre]

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 “
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
c

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] choosealicense.com fork with better wording, perhaps ?

[Riley Baird]

> 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 

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] choosealicense.com fork with better wording, perhaps ?

[hellekin]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512

On 09/24/2014 02:01 PM, hellekin wrote:
> protected works in a competitive environment prevail.  If you look
> closely at the music industry, to take an easy target, the drawers of
> big companies are full of artists waiting to be discovered who, if they
> were to "freely express themselves" without their contracted label, who
> cast the shadow of their talent over stars that the companies spent
> millions to market.
>
*** Sorry, that's "full of artists who... WOULD cast the shadow".

==
hk
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2
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=H117
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] choosealicense.com fork with better wording, perhaps ?

[hellekin]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512

On 09/22/2014 08:53 PM, Riley Baird wrote:
>> Murder is not a freedom, it's a crime.  Freedom
>> amplifies possibilities, and does not restrict them.
> 
> If freedom is that which amplifies possibilities, but does not restrict
> them, then why doesn't murder fit this description?
> 
> If I am able to murder someone to use their flesh in cooking
>
*** then *they* cannot exercise their freedom, can they?  Are you
trolling, or trying to be a psychopath?  If "your" freedom is entirely
objective, then sure, you can think stuff like "I am free to raze the
mountain, frack the land, cut the rainforest, nuke your city, and
genocide the Yasuni to prospect oil".  Well no, it's not objective, we
share a planet.  Theory tends to reach hard limits when put in practice.
 Psychopathy is a way to keep the world theoretical.

> 
> Yes, but you haven't established why helping the authors make money in
> an artificial marketplace is more important than protecting my free speech.
>
*** If you consider parroting an exercise of free speech, you probably
don't need free speech in the first place.  On the other hand, authors
today can make a living by giving away their work, for the reasons I
mentioned earlier.  I repeat, that's not for everybody, but indeed, it's
more akin to symbiosis than to parasitism: if you like a creation,
you're more likely to provide for the creator, than if you don't.  In a
society where people live together, and not only juxtaposed to each
other in their psychopathic world, it actually happens like this.  Only
by ways of propaganda are we led to believe, by people who stole from
creators in the first place, that things work otherwise, and that only
protected works in a competitive environment prevail.  If you look
closely at the music industry, to take an easy target, the drawers of
big companies are full of artists waiting to be discovered who, if they
were to "freely express themselves" without their contracted label, who
cast the shadow of their talent over stars that the companies spent
millions to market.  This is also true of multinational corporations,
that buy competitors to "disappear" their products.  In the land of free
speech, the freer one has the biggest megaphone.

> 
> Opera does not allow distribution of the browser without restriction.
>
*** So, you agree with me.

> 
> So, it seems that we have to choose between two freedoms: freedom of
> speech, and practical ability to study how (all) software works. I'd
> prefer the one that can be worked around legally.
>
*** You're still trying to turn freedom into a commodity.  I don't see
how these two aspects, expression and inquiry, are opposed anyway.

> 
> 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.
>
*** I don't think the Big Bang is anymore satisfying an explanation than
the existence of god.  And yes, a universe without conscious beings is
pretty much at our fingertips, given the stockpiles of nukes, anti-riot
police, terrorism laws, and all-out war on sustainability that the
"world leaders" are promoting and letting proliferate.

> 
> Belief in the Judeo-Christian God requires belief in an approximately
> 6000 year old Earth, if we are to take the Bible literally.
>
*** Fortunately, only a lunatic fringe takes the Bible literally.
That's where Intelligent Design meets American Atheists.  But I believe
a majority of people who read it actually knows how to read, and can
understand symbolism--or at least not take mere translations to the
letter.  Beyond any authorship or actual contents, as the Italians say:
traduttore, traditore (translator, traitor).

> 
> Anyone who cares enough about a moral issue to want to research it is
> going to want to see both sides. This does not mean you have to show
> them both sides, however. If I am reading an essay, I know that I am
> getting a biased view, and I take that into account.
>
*** Oh, thank you, you should have started with this!

> Maybe, if you put a FSF logo somewhere on the page, people would see the
> origin of the document, realise the bias of the guide, and read with
> this in mind. (This would be a good idea for the github-based one too,
> although github seems apolitical to most people.)
>
*** As apolitical as BP, Monsanto, Syngenta, Halliburton, or Coca Cola,
etc.  Heh.  Such as guide would probably be free itself, so if the
original contains the FSF logo, any further copy could likely contain
another, or none--that's to illustrate that your freedom of expression
(shipping it with a logo) does not impede my freedom of expression
(shipping it without one), and we can still both study the original work
and debate about the virtues of that modification--I mean, if we didn't
have anything more productive to do.

>> BTW, I don't think "man *did* come from a monkey" nor that evolution is
>> gradual.  I think 

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] choosealicense.com fork with better wording, perhaps ?

[Garreau, Alexandre]

On 2014-09-23 at 01:53, Riley Baird wrote:
>> Murder is not a freedom, it's a crime.  Freedom
>> amplifies possibilities, and does not restrict them.
>
> If freedom is that which amplifies possibilities, but does not restrict
> them, then why doesn't murder fit this description?
>
> If I am able to murder someone to use their flesh in cooking, then that
> increases greatly the number of different dishes which I can make. It
> does not restrict my freedom, since I am not forced to cook using their
> flesh, it is just an option available to me.

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.

Then if you still want to see from an individualist point of view, you
have to consider that when we say “freedom is being able to do whatever
you want without restricting other’s freedom” it’s not an arbitrary
principle, but it’s because the freedom of others *increase* your
individual freedom. If most of animal species (everything after mammals
for instance), and notably cultural animal (monkeys and /homo/ genus),
live in society, it’s simply because society, collaboration and
solidarity is an objective advantage in struggle for staying alive
(struggle against circumstances most than others, contrarily to a common
misconception of Darwinist evolution).

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.

> Yes, but you haven't established why helping the authors make money in
> an artificial marketplace is more important than protecting my free speech.

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.

>>> 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.

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.

>> 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.

> Hedonistic utilitarians value happiness, communists value equality,
> libertarians value individual freedom and Orthodox Jews value
> following Mosaic Law.

Isn’t all that linked to freedom at the end? Anarchism taking freedom as
its finality arrive to communist (the philosophy, not the soviet
state-capitalism system nor the authoritarian conception of revolution)
conclusions with utilitarian rationality and a “libertarian” value (well
actually it’s libertarians who illegitimately reclaimed anarchists
rhetoric and values turning completely upside down its thoughts, like
saying capitalism is opposed to hierarchy/authority and makes people
free).

Freedom being essentially defined after will, it matches
happiness. Equality (to distinguish from “similar” or “identical”) being
defined as being not superior nor inferior negates hierarchy, thus
authority thus matches Freedom. Every value of Good, at the end, matches
Freedom.

So at the end everyone thinking rationally is goin

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] choosealicense.com fork with better wording, perhaps ?

[Riley Baird]

> Murder is not a freedom, it's a crime.  Freedom
> amplifies possibilities, and does not restrict them.

If freedom is that which amplifies possibilities, but does not restrict
them, then why doesn't murder fit this description?

If I am able to murder someone to use their flesh in cooking, then that
increases greatly the number of different dishes which I can make. It
does not restrict my freedom, since I am not forced to cook using their
flesh, it is just an option available to me.

>> So why should I be able to stop you from publishing the book I wrote?
> 
>  Copyright was not created to prevent anyone from publishing the
> work of other people, but to give a chance to the author to establish a
> trade out of a work that is not a commodity. 

Yes, but you haven't established why helping the authors make money in
an artificial marketplace is more important than protecting my free speech.

>> A license which guaranteed everyone the right to give away, sell and
>> modify a work provided that any derivative software remained under the
>> same license would do a much better job than the permissive licenses do
>> at guaranteeing freedom, whilst not requiring the redistributor to give
>> away the source.
> 
> *** Actually, the GNU Affero General Public License v3+, but I may be
> wrong, does not require the redistributor to give the source, but simply
> to make it accessible: so if the source is publicly available somewhere,
> linking to it would be enough.  Isn't that the case?

I think that that's only if you allow people to interact with the
software over a network, and if you have not made any modifications to
the software.

> you're wrong on two
> accounts: first, there are industries formed around distributing
> "sourceless" software without restriction.  It's called freeware, and
> the Opera browser is a good example of that. 

Opera does not allow distribution of the browser without restriction. In
section 3.1 on its EULA, we find that modification, separation for use
on different computers, distribution to any third party, reverse
engineering, and allowing any third party to use the software are all
forbidden.

Also, Opera's business model is based around two main sources of
revenue: licensing to the embedded market (e.g. Nintendo 3DS, Nintendo
Wii) and collecting information from users' searches.

The licensing to the embedded market would be entirely unnecessary if
distribution were free (although, admittedly, porting software could be
a service which would be sold).

As for collecting information from users' searches, *this* is a problem.
It still amazes me how many people use Chrome instead of Chromium when
practically the only difference is added tracking. That being said, even
software with source (like Firefox) makes tracking enabled by default,
and the practical ability to fork has not convinced them to change their
ways. Same with Ubuntu and searches being sent to Amazon.

> The second point is that
> you missed the requirement to exercise freedom #1: in order to be able
> to study how the software works, one must have access to the source code.

Yes, to study how the software works, one must have access to the source
code (unless one is willing to learn how to reverse engineer).

So, it seems that we have to choose between two freedoms: freedom of
speech, and practical ability to study how (all) software works. I'd
prefer the one that can be worked around legally.

>> 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.

> *** If the case were "the existence of God", I would agree: some would
> say it does not exist, some would say it exists, and nobody could prove
> anything.  If the case were "intelligent design", I wouldn't: it's
> proven that the Earth is older than 4000 years by orders of magnitude,
> that dinosaurs and humans didn't walk the Earth at the same time (unless
> you count the few species still alive who did, like giant turtles or
> squids), etc.

Belief in the Judeo-Christian God requires belief in an approximately
6000 year old Earth, if we are to take the Bible literally. So, if you
can prove that the Earth is more than 6000 years old, you can disprove a
literal interpretation of the Bible.

> There are cases where contradiction is good and
> warranted, and others where it is not.

Agreed.

> 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 t

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] choosealicense.com fork with better wording, perhaps ?

[hellekin]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512

On 08/20/2014 06:01 AM, Riley Baird wrote:
> 
> Negative freedom, if not restricted in parts, defeats itself quickly
>
*** Negative freedom defeats itself because it works in an abstract
world that is infinite.  Murder is not a freedom, it's a crime.  Freedom
amplifies possibilities, and does not restrict them.  All your
argumentation about "negative freedom" is nonsensical given the previous
sentence.  All of it.

> 
> So why should I be able to stop you from publishing the book I wrote?
>
 Copyright was not created to prevent anyone from publishing the
work of other people, but to give a chance to the author to establish a
trade out of a work that is not a commodity.  Turning creative work into
a commodity is the problem that Copyright was supposed to solve by
giving a head start to the author, an exclusivity suitable for them to
receive a fair payment for their prior work, that would allow them to
produce more.  Now, the issue with Copyright arose when publishers
managed to subvert the intention of the law and took over its meaning
for their own profit.  This is how you could have creators dying in
poverty while their producers made millions out of their work.  Copyleft
subverts the subversion by preventing it.  It does not allow the creator
to make a head start like the original Copyright law, but it doesn't
matter, because the market has changed: reaching an audience is much
easier, and virtually gratis, so the audience is larger, and creators
can be rewarded fairly by the mass.  That also means competition is
harsher, so the solution is not optimal.  But at least it stops
publishers from pirating the creators.

> But when we consider reality, we are in a society where the institution
> of copyright exists. If we put our software into the public domain, then
> others can take them and then deprive others of their freedom. So we
> need a copyleft that gets us closer to this ideal of no copyright.
>
*** Fair enough.

> A license which guaranteed everyone the right to give away, sell and
> modify a work provided that any derivative software remained under the
> same license would do a much better job than the permissive licenses do
> at guaranteeing freedom, whilst not requiring the redistributor to give
> away the source.
>
*** Actually, the GNU Affero General Public License v3+, but I may be
wrong, does not require the redistributor to give the source, but simply
to make it accessible: so if the source is publicly available somewhere,
linking to it would be enough.  Isn't that the case?

> If people are granted the right to give away copies for
> free, then it becomes difficult for an industry to form around this
> sourceless software
>
*** Hmmm, I guess I misread you.  And in that case, you're wrong on two
accounts: first, there are industries formed around distributing
"sourceless" software without restriction.  It's called freeware, and
the Opera browser is a good example of that.  The second point is that
you missed the requirement to exercise freedom #1: in order to be able
to study how the software works, one must have access to the source code.

> 
> I do not believe that property is necessarily a part of freedom.
>
*** I agree.

> 
> 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.

> However, you are correct that all writing is, to some degree,
> propaganda, and the person writing it will still insert bias even if
> they are actively trying not to. That is why I suggested that two people
> with opposite bias write their respective parts of the guide.
>
*** If the case were "the existence of God", I would agree: some would
say it does not exist, some would say it exists, and nobody could prove
anything.  If the case were "intelligent design", I wouldn't: it's
proven that the Earth is older than 4000 years by orders of magnitude,
that dinosaurs and humans didn't walk the Earth at the same time (unless
you count the few species still alive who did, like giant turtles or
squids), etc.  There are cases where contradiction is good and
warranted, and others where it is not.  War is not peace, freedom is not
slavery, and copying music won't kill the music industry.  What will
kill them is their inability to be honest and fair.  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.

> "Man comes from monkey who comes from a tree" would never be said by a
> person arguing for evolution.
>
*** Of course not.  And framing Copyleft as restrictive would never come
from someone who is arguing in favor of software freedom.

BTW, I don't think "man *did* come from a monkey" nor that evolution is
gradual. 

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] choosealicense.com fork with better wording, perhaps ?

[Riley Baird]

>>> In that case, "permissive" licenses also include restrictions -- but
>>> they are not described as such.
>>
>> The choosealicense.com page for the MIT license actually does list the
>> requirement to keep a copy of the license and all copyright notices as a
>> restriction.
> 
> Yes, it does, using softer language. This same mode of language should
> be used in the GPL description. Rather than "requires" and "further
> restricts". 

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'm happy to submit this as a pull request, if you think the language
okay, but before I do, I would like to know if this change in language
would be sufficient to prevent a fork, or if there are other language
problems with the site.

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] choosealicense.com fork with better wording, perhaps ?

[John Sullivan]

Riley Baird  writes:

>> In that case, "permissive" licenses also include restrictions -- but
>> they are not described as such.
>
> The choosealicense.com page for the MIT license actually does list the
> requirement to keep a copy of the license and all copyright notices as a
> restriction.

Yes, it does, using softer language. This same mode of language should
be used in the GPL description. Rather than "requires" and "further
restricts". 

-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
.

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] choosealicense.com fork with better wording, perhaps ?

[Riley Baird]

On 20/08/14 08:05, hellekin wrote:
> 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.

Negative freedom, if not restricted in parts, defeats itself quickly
because people abuse the freedom to take other people's freedom away.
That is why many people who are in favour of negative freedom are
willing to concede some of their freedoms (such as murder) so that the
majority of their freedoms will be preserved. This is often stated as
some variation on the non-aggression principle, and while there are
definitely some problems with this, by and large it gives the most
negative freedom while making sure that everyone has an equal amount of
negative freedom.

As I said, however, it does not always work well. A person that is
constantly being watched by their employer lacks freedom in practice, as
they are only able to do activities which their employer approves of,
lest they get fired. It is reasonable to restrict the employers freedom
such that the employee is able to enjoy positive freedom. (Until there
is a basic income, at which point the employee is no longer dependent on
the

On the other hand, consider a person who has joined a cult. While there
are no restrictions on their leaving, they lose the ability to think
independently and thus cannot easily come to the decision of leaving.
The cult may be seen as having power over the individual, albeit a power
obtained by words, not force, and then maintained by fear.

Forcing people out of these cults leads to authoritarianism, though -
imagine if opposition parties/atheism were deemed to be a cult. People
can be trained to think again through voluntary deprogramming; if you
appeal to rationality, you don't need to use force. If force were used,
as it often is used to stop protesters, then free speech, and hence
freedom, would be diminished.

Now consider copyright. If I were to write a book, and the government
were to stop me from publishing it, that would be taking away my free
speech. No-one has the right to tell me what I can and cannot publish,
as that would be interfering with my free speech. So why should I be
able to stop you from publishing the book I wrote? It doesn't matter the
origin of the words, so long as I am allowed to say them.

But when we consider reality, we are in a society where the institution
of copyright exists. If we put our software into the public domain, then
others can take them and then deprive others of their freedom. So we
need a copyleft that gets us closer to this ideal of no copyright.

A license which guaranteed everyone the right to give away, sell and
modify a work provided that any derivative software remained under the
same license would do a much better job than the permissive licenses do
at guaranteeing freedom, whilst not requiring the redistributor to give
away the source. If people are granted the right to give away copies for
free, then it becomes difficult for an industry to form around this
sourceless software, and without the profit motive, then most
contributors would be inclined to think "Why not publish the source?".

That being said, there is unfortunately no license that I know of which
is like that. If I ever do make one, I will probably release software
under a dual license with that and the GPL. The GPL is by far less open
to abuse than permissive licenses. (I'd probably waive 2a, though.)

(Note that I have tried not to use economic concerns in the above, as I
do not believe that property is necessarily a part of 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
> di

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] choosealicense.com fork with better wording, perhaps ?

[Riley Baird]

> In that case, "permissive" licenses also include restrictions -- but
> they are not described as such.

The choosealicense.com page for the MIT license actually does list the
requirement to keep a copy of the license and all copyright notices as a
restriction.

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] choosealicense.com fork with better wording, perhaps ?

[hellekin]

-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
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=KS+f
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] choosealicense.com fork with better wording, perhaps ?

[John Sullivan]

"ag ag01"  writes:

>> 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.)

In that case, "permissive" licenses also include restrictions -- but
they are not described as such.

-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
.

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] choosealicense.com fork with better wording, perhaps ?

[Robert Call]

> "Jason Self"  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 ?

[John Sullivan]

"Jason Self"  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
.

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] choosealicense.com fork with better wording, perhaps ?

[John Sullivan]

"Jason Self"  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
.

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] choosealicense.com fork with better wording, perhaps ?

[Riley Baird]

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]

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 ?

[Riley Baird]

On 19/08/14 21:37, Julian Marchant wrote:
> 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.

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.

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] choosealicense.com fork with better wording, perhaps ?

[ag ag01]

> 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 ?

[Jason Self]

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 ?

[Julian Marchant]

-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]

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 ?

[Jason Self]

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 ?

[Riley Baird]

> 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 ?

[John Sullivan]

"Riley Baird (Orthogonal)"  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
.

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] choosealicense.com fork with better wording, perhaps ?

[Julian Marchant]

-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-

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] choosealicense.com fork with better wording, perhaps ?

[Riley Baird (Orthogonal)]

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).

[GNU-linux-libre] choosealicense.com fork with better wording, perhaps ?

[Felipe Sanches]

Is there something similar to http://choosealicense.com/ but with language
better aligned to the mission of the free software movement ?

happy hacking,
Felipe Sanches