Re: [Fsfe-uk] Re: ECF/ESF

[MJ Ray]

On 2004-10-05 13:40:10 +0100 Chris Croughton <address@hidden> 
wrote:

> To most of the people I talk to about computers, excepting the
> already-converted GNU/Linux/etc. geeks, "free software" and "free 
> media"
> mean free as in "free beer" and nothing else. [...]

I wonder what those people think "free enterprise" and "free society" 
mean? Anyway, that wasn't really the point: see my post on Tuesday 
morning.

> On the other hand, "open source" and "open media standards" are
> something they can understand.

Have you ever met any normal person who can remember accurately all 
points of the "Open Source Definition" at first attempt? At best, they 
come away with some fuzzy ideas of programmer liberalism which the 
next marketer can then mould into their Shared Source or whatever. 
Both "open source" and "free software" need explanation. I prefer 
"free software" because the "...use ...adapt ...redistribute 
...release your improvements..." definition is complete yet short.

And "open media standards": I think last time it was discussed here, 
"open formats" and "open information" were the consensual terms.

> Well, it may not be 'free' according to the Debian definition, but 
> isn't
> the same true of some of the FSF documentation licences?

Work under some FSF documentation licences is not free software. To be 
fair, FSF doesn't claim it is. If you take the FSF line that its 
documentation is not software (which I disagree with), that would 
still mean it can't go in Debian at present.

> At least some
> of what is on that web page seems to me (a non-lawyer) as silly
> nitpicking, in particular claiming that the anti-DRM clause means that
> it can't be distributed at all privately [...]

That's one position that enough people hold to stop consensus building 
far. Debian usually needs consensus before deciding that something is 
free software.

Also, I don't remember any of the lawyers or law students in 
debian-legal objecting to that claim yet (and yes, there are some as 
well as the laymen) - it may be that it's simply unclear and we're 
still unsure. Lack of clarity in DRM clauses has been fairly common, 
probably because they are new and little-established so far.

> It's that sort of nitpicking which puts a lot of people off the "free
> software" community. [...]

It's that sort of nitpicking which puts a lot of people off any 
law-based work. Sadly, copyright is not easy to escape. You can always 
ignore copyright law, but copyright law won't always ignore you, as 
the recording industry are showing when they go after filesharers.

--
MJR/slef    My Opinion Only and not of any group I know
 Creative copyleft computing - http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
LinuxExpo.org.uk village 6+7 Oct http://www.affs.org.uk