[Top][All Lists]

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

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

From: Aaron Wolf
Subject: Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Fwd: The FSF Allows No Derivatives,
Date: Thu, 14 May 2015 10:27:10 -0700
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.6.0

"I do not consider it unjust
to give people the power to avoid misrepresentation and plagiarism."

This is all red herring stuff. Plagiarism is FRAUD. Misrepresentation is
FRAUD. Misattribution is FRAUD. Those are beyond copyright.

If I say "RMS said that everyone should now use Apache licenses and stop
using GPL" I have NOT committed *any* form of copyright infringement.
Period. I have committed FRAUD.

I could say "I wrote the GPL, not RMS!" and that would be plagiarism and
fraud. Again, it would NOT be copyright infringement.

The ND clause has the *primary* effect of stopping people from taking
some of RMS writings, some of Lessig's writings, some of my writings,
and making a great video promoting software freedom… and all sorts of
other such things.

Furthermore, the CC licenses have this clause, which I *already* pointed
out in THIS THREAD here:



"If You Share the Licensed Material (including in modified form), You
must: indicate if You modified the Licensed Material and retain an
indication of any previous modifications;"

We cannot even have an honest discussion about the ND license if people
insist on ignoring the basic facts about what it does and does not cover
or allow.

On 05/14/2015 10:16 AM, Will Hill wrote:
> Misleading translations prove that misleading translations are a problem we 
> need to think about.  Right now, GNU could go after Google, Bing and other 
> bad actors if they were to provide bad translations.  Will this be enough?  
> How will things be improved by getting rid of ND?  I'd rather see resources 
> put elsewhere than contributing to a Scroogle campaign.  I'm not comfortable 
> with the situation but encourage honest efforts.  
> Copyright in the US is still mostly civil law, enforced at the discression of 
> the offended party which may be selective.  If it were not that way, we could 
> not make licenses and exceptions like the GPL.  I do not consider it unjust 
> to give people the power to avoid misrepresentation and plagiarism.   
> Go ahead and publish your translation.  I can't speak for GNU but I imagine 
> the worst thing that would happen to you is that you will be told to take it 
> down.  In the best case, you will get some corrections.  That seems to be how 
> GNU deals with infringement.  
> You have told me that getting rid of ND will liberate honest efforts.   I've 
> objected that it will give people with wealth and power more advantages and 
> won't work.  Are there any studies showing us what really works?  

Aaron Wolf
music teacher,

reply via email to

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