[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 22:44:17 -0700
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.6.0


Obviously, I agree with Richard Stallman's views in almost every
respect. He is on the right side of all of this for the most part, and
obviously there are bad actors on the opposite side.

I'm not blaming RMS for the situation with the music industry.

But this is all tangential. You and others have failed to provide any
reasonable justification for RMS' use of ND other than an ill-founded
claim that it actually helps avoid misrepresentation. I've pointed out
that misrepresentation is possible regardless and that CC has a clause
that requires modified versions to be marked as modified. Furthermore,
plagiarism and misrepresentation are fraudulent regardless of copyright law.

You haven't provided any clear point about what distinction you are
drawing where freedom 3 should not apply. Nor have you addressed any of
the other points.

The most simple example of value from derivative works is the violation
of ND that someone did when they posted an RMS video edited *only* to
remove pauses while leaving the entire content intact. The result was a
better viewing experience that more people will watch as it is shorter.

There's tons of other ways people might use material productively. I
might very well choose to make useful grammatical edits that make an
essay just a bit easier to read. I could ask RMS for permission, but he
would want to see the work first, so I'd have to do the work and then
find out whether I can publish. If he says yes, I would surely have to
keep the ND terms. Thus, someone else would have to ask him again if
they wanted to make further improvements.

Freedom is an important principle, and modeling it matters. Regardless
of the utility of these exact writings, the message sent by promoting ND
undermines values that are important and aligned with the mission for
software freedom. Absolutely none of this is anywhere near as bad as the
truly bad actors out there. RMS is still a great person and a hero doing
wonderful things. But he should stop using ND. It isn't justified and
you haven't provided even a reasonable argument for it that could be

When/if RMS dropped ND, it *would* result in positive prospects for the
messages of software freedom that we care about, and it would not have
the feared results that he is currently so worried about. I still
respect his emotional concern. He's not crazy to have these worries. But
they aren't founded enough to justify the ND license. This is both
practical and symbolic issue.


On 05/15/2015 10:30 PM, Will Hill wrote:
> Your problem seems to be copyright wielded by a rapacious publishing 
> industry.  
> What does that have to do with Richard Stallman saying ND is appropriate for 
> works of opinion, or translation?  GNU is not keeping you from writing great 
> music texts.  If Richard Stallman was magically in charge of laws tomorrow, I 
> think you would get your chance to write textbooks.  
> On Saturday 16 May 2015, Aaron Wolf wrote:
>> So, what's the line you are drawing? When are political statements not
>> educational? Which songs have no opinions in them?
>> On 05/15/2015 09:57 PM, Will Hill wrote:
>>> Who says we should apply ND to instructions, text books, or songs?  
>>> On Friday 15 May 2015, Aaron Wolf wrote:
>>>> I am a guitar teacher. I would like to create a major improvement to
>>>> educational materials using the best resources and reference to hundreds
>>>> of culturally-relevant songs that would inspire students.

Aaron Wolf
music teacher,

reply via email to

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