[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: The copyright issue

From: Andreas Röhler
Subject: Re: The copyright issue
Date: Mon, 09 Aug 2010 16:28:17 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; de; rv: Gecko/20100711 Thunderbird/3.0.6

Am 09.08.2010 15:06, schrieb David Kastrup:
Andreas Röhler<address@hidden>  writes:

Am 09.08.2010 12:01, schrieb Richard Stallman:
The main reason our lawyer gave when advising us to ask for copyright
assignments is so that the copyright status of the program is simple.
He said that would help us in court if we need to sue someone for
violating the GPL.

We can make an exception occasionally when it is very important
but we should not make many exceptions.
The crux is: this policy puts the risk at the weakest shoulders, at
the contributors.
No, it _takes_ the task of suing for compliance from the shoulders of
the contributors.

Freedom is not a tool to sue. That's a mistake.

Please consider: adversaires of free software will not ignore this,
will not miss the point.
Adversaries of free software will notice when the legal position of the
FSF is weak.  I have no idea what "point" you are trying to make.

BTW we have a prominent example in Germany already, how a career and
social existence of an free softtware activist might be ruined.

His name is Jörg Tauss. He was a member of the Parliament, the
Bundestag.  Inside Germany as in Europe Jörg Tauss took action against
software patents.
The accusation is acquisition and possession of child pornography.  If
you consider this in any way connected with copyright assignment
policies, you are just crazy.  It may be loosely connected with freedom
of information and privacy, but that's utterly, utterly unrelated to the
topic of discussion.  So please get a grip and use, if at all, examples
that have anything to do with the point you are trying to make.

Defending free software means defending freedom of information also.

Jörg Taus did both.

The case of Jörg Tauss has been used to pervert
legislation. Until then Art. 19 of Universal
Declaration of Human Rights from December 10, 1948, was
respected et least in theory:

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and
expression; this right includes freedom to hold
opinions without interference and to seek, receive and
impart information and ideas through any media and
regardless of frontiers.

Shortly before Jörg Tauss was sentenced, legislation
was changed, making already of possession of
information, i.e. pictures of a crime, a crime itself.

Notably Jörg Tauss as Member of Parliament opposed that
new law before, tried to check himself whats behind the
child-porn-campaign. He felt fooled by services,
assumed getting wrong informations at the real issue
and purposes.  He was the speaker of his parliaments
group in just this IT-, freedom of information related

FSFE should know his name from Patent- and other FSF-related
matters very well.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]