[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
what RMS says.... (was Re: [DotGNU]Open Content Network: Free Software P
what RMS says.... (was Re: [DotGNU]Open Content Network: Free Software P2P)
Fri, 31 May 2002 23:02:31 -0500
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.0.0+) Gecko/20020525
Gopal V wrote:
Not exactly ... because taking a song and adding a feature or fixing
a bug sounds silly for Music... And what would you call "source" for
some Music ..... You might compare the music notes on a paper to
Software source... Mp3s are not !.... So how can they be "free" in
the analogy to "software freedom" ?
And to stress that point .... we never said anything about "Music
I don't presume to speak for RMS, but here are two good quotes from FAIF
"Before Napster, I thought it might be OK for people to privately
redistribute works of entertainment," Stallman says. "The number of
people who find Napster useful, however, tells me that the right to
redistribute copies not only on a neighbor-to-neighbor basis, but to the
public at large, is essential and therefore may not be taken away."
"It's a mistake to transfer answers from one thing to another," says
Stallman, contrasting songs with software programs. "The right approach
is to look at each type of work and see what conclusion you get."
When it comes to copyrighted works, Stallman says he divides the world
into three categories. The first category involves "functional"
works-e.g., software programs, dictionaries, and textbooks. The second
category involves works that might best be described as
"testimonial"-e.g., scientific papers and historical documents. Such
works serve a purpose that would be undermined if subsequent readers or
authors were free to modify the work at will. The final category
involves works of personal expression-e.g., diaries, journals, and
autobiographies. To modify such documents would be to alter a person's
recollections or point of view-action Stallman considers ethically
Of the three categories, the first should give users the unlimited right
to make modified versions, while the second and third should regulate
that right according to the will of the original author. Regardless of
category, however, the freedom to copy and redistribute noncommercially
should remain unabridged at all times, Stallman insists. If that means
giving Internet users the right to generate a hundred copies of an
article, image, song, or book and then email the copies to a hundred
strangers, so be it. "It's clear that private occasional redistribution
must be permitted, because only a police state can stop that," Stallman
says. "It's antisocial to come between people and their friends. Napster
has convinced me that we also need to permit, must permit, even
noncommercial redistribution to the public for the fun of it. Because so
many people want to do that and find it so useful."
The really clear thing is, and I definitely agree with this: "the
freedom to copy and redistribute noncommercially should remain
unabridged at all times"
<muse>I think that last `even' is a semantic error, but I'll let it go
this time ;)</muse>
So what will you do ?.... Write a photoshop clone ? ... You can't compare
it to music in any way .... (cloning music .... LOL !)
Yeah, um, last time I checked, cloning music was a perfectly legal and
common industry practice ;)
DotGNU `Contributor' -- http://www.dotgnu.org
Microsoft is the natural development of a software industry based on
dividing users and taking away their freedom. When criticizing
Microsoft, we must not exonerate the other companies that also make
proprietary software. At the FSF, we don't run any proprietary
software--not from Microsoft or anyone else.
-- RMS, "Is Microsoft the Great Satan?"
- what RMS says.... (was Re: [DotGNU]Open Content Network: Free Software P2P),