[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Gnugeneration-discuss] [FC-discuss] What ideas do you have for dire
Re: [Gnugeneration-discuss] [FC-discuss] What ideas do you have for direct action techniques to further free software and free culture?
Tue, 17 Apr 2012 13:04:08 -0400
On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 00:29:13 -0400
Karl Fogel <address@hidden> wrote:
> Danny Piccirillo <address@hidden> writes:
> >There is a debate within the free culture and free software
> >communities (presented within the scope of software, where it is most
> >Permissive vs Copyleft
> >Permissive licensing is mostly hands off, and allows for proprietary
> >software to be made from free software. The argument here is that
> >free software should be made by choice, or at least that the law
> >shouldn't be relied upon to keep software free.
> I realize most of your email was humorous or meant as provocation :-),
> but I wanted to address seriously something in what you say above:
> We hear this "choice" argument all the time: that free culture and
> free software are all very well and good, but shouldn't it be the
> producer's "choice" whether or not to release their work under a free
> When people ask the question that way, they forget that everyone has
> the potential for choice. We need to explain that a creator
> exercising such a "choice" is thus taking choices away from others.
> That is, if I choose to (say) publish a book under a non-free
> license, I am thereby *taking away* everyone else's choices to share
> it, translate it, make derivative works from it, etc. (And it's
> worse than a zero-sum game, since so many more people's choices are
> being limited in that scenario.)
> Of course, taking away those choices is currently the default under
> law. The state not only grants, but actively encourages, that
> particular monopoly -- so much so that many people don't even think
> of this as reducing others' choices, even though that is its main
> So when you encounter the "choice" argument, please point out to your
> interlocutor that choice goes both ways.
Actually yes, it could certainly be a good idea to point out that
allowing that could certainly be akin to giving them a specific right
to harm others. Especially given that many people in the bsd
communities seem to be of the (US, not aware of how other countries'
parties are,) libertarian persuasion. I don't think many of them have a
problem with the concept of "Your right to swing your arms around ends
at my face."