[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: Fri, 15 May 2015 20:19:33 -0700
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.6.0

Will, as already stated multiple times, the ND license does NOT blocks
misrepresentation of opinions specifically. It blocks all derivatives
while NOT block misrepresentations that are not direct derivatives. The
other CC licenses include the clause I've already quoted which requires
derivatives to be marked as modified.

Your characterization of software freedom as being only about
controlling your own computer is actually wrong. The Free Software
definition has 4 items. They do *not* all relate to controlling your own
computer. Those are only freedoms 0 and 1.

Also, freedom 2 is respected by all Creative Commons licenses (and RMS
believes that freedom 2 is essential for *all* works, including works of
opinion). So, only Freedom 3 is in question here.

Now, you could take a position that freedom 3 doesn't matter even for
software. You don't care about freedom 3. I assume you don't take that
view. But if you did, you *could* say that the ND license is okay
because it only blocks freedom 3, which you don't care about.

But what you are actually doing is arguing against freedom 3 for
cultural works, but you are doing so by referencing freedoms 0 and 1. If
you want the conclusion "freedom 3 is important for software but not for
other works" then make that case. That could be a reasonable argument at

On 05/15/2015 08:04 PM, Will Hill wrote:
> If you can show me how you not having permission to misrepresent my opinions 
> will give me control over your computer, then I'll believe that works of 
> opinion and software are the same thing.  Software freedoms are fundamental 
> rights to control your own computer.  It's not the software or the computer 
> that's free, though they can be described that way, it's the user that has 
> freedom.  Works of opinions are a different kind of expression and deserve 
> different kinds of rules.  
> Nina is wrong to suppose that ND means one kind of expression is valued more 
> than the other because she failed to understand some fundamentals of software 
> freedom.  I would have talked to her about this on G+ but she did not put it 
> there.  
> On Friday 15 May 2015, Aaron Wolf wrote:
>> It's put simply in Nina's

Aaron Wolf
music teacher,

reply via email to

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