[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [libreplanet-discuss] The FSF Allows No Derivatives,

From: Aaron Wolf
Subject: Re: [libreplanet-discuss] The FSF Allows No Derivatives,
Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2015 15:29:53 -0700
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.6.0

As RMS pointed out himself, he is not totally extreme on these things.

Last time I heard him speak on these topics, he emphasized the need for better 
legal respect for remix culture. Also, I asked about the ways that CC licenses 
require that modified version be marked as modified and that an author's 
association with a derivative must be removed upon request. His response was 
that he didn't feel comfortable with the adequacy of these measures.

I disagree with him about the level of distinction he draws between functional 
works and works of opinion, but he is not a total extremist, and he does 
recognize that the ND license restricts potential value. He just thinks that 
requiring permission is an okay trade-off to protect the things he is concerned 
about. I and others disagree. But we shouldn't mischaracterize his position as 
being more extreme than it is.


On 04/25/2015 10:03 AM, Richard Stallman wrote:
> [[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
> [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
> [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]
>   > A friend of mine emailed Stallman about creating FAN translations of
>   > published works that have been locked up by exclusive privileges, (not
>   > questioning the legality of it because obviously we know the answer to
>   > that question even if I don't agree with how the law works), but
>   > questioning the morality of it. And he actually replied. He said
>   > creating derivatives of published works without permission is morally
>   > ok, but not translations. Translations are not ok.
> I certainly did not say that -- I think someone misunderstood and
> got it backwards.
> The problem with translation is that if it is not done right
> it has the effect of altering the point.  A license that
> permits anyone to translate a work has the effect of permitting
> anyone to alter its position.
> If there were a way to permit only correct, clear translation,
> I would permit that -- but there is no realistic way to assure
> that a translation is correct.
> See for my views
> about modification of non-functional works such as art and opinion.

reply via email to

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