what RMS says.... (was Re: [DotGNU]Open Content Network: Free Software P2P)

[S11001001]

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
> being Free"...

I don't presume to speak for RMS, but here are two good quotes from FAIF 
<http://www.faifzilla.org/ch05.html>:

BEGINQUOTE
"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."
ENDQUOTE

BEGINQUOTE
"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"testimonial"-e.g., scientific papers and historical documents.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 
unjustifiable.

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."
ENDQUOTE

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 ;)

--
Stephen Compall
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?"