[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: Mon, 25 May 2015 13:25:34 -0700
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0

The "you can make an original thing" is completely naive.

You know, you can write your own encyclopedia article too, why do you
need freedoms to use or modify Wikipedia?

You can write your own software, why do you need freedom to distribute
modified versions of mine?

Etc. etc.

This entire line of thinking is wrong.

I edit Wikipedia not to misrepresent something but to fix run-on
sentences, organize paragraphs better…

If people could edit RMS' works, it doesn't remove the original. And no,
they cannot just as easily or just as effectively write new articles
from scratch. That is a different thing, it is not the same result.

The "just write something original" is completely missing the nature of
"originality" (see ) *and* is
also saying, "we can hamper this one area of culture out of fear of
misrepresentation because there are other areas of cultural work that
remain unhampered."

The defenders of ND are also being very glib here. You're saying, "I
don't myself understand or care about the cultural freedoms or
derivative work you are talking about, so I can simply conclude that
they have no real value. Since *I* wasn't going to do this work, it's
not a problem to me, so it must be just a problem for you, and you
should just adapt and stop complaining."

On 05/25/2015 01:09 PM, Giuseppe Molica wrote:
>> so having translation of the original rhetoric in other languages and
>> dialects would certainly help increase the number of people that know about 
>> Libre Software.  Though is not possible due to ND clause.
> But it is still possible write an "original" article about
> Libre Software. I can explain it in italian, using my own words; who
> wants to know more, is free to read the original RMS's points of view.
>> If the Bible had an ND clause, then it would have never gotten past
>> Judaism, and may have been lost to even Hebrews after the diaspora,
>> when many of them forgot how to speak Hebrew.
>> Sure maybe there was some risk in translating the bible to Greek,
>> Latin, or English,  but it did make it more accessible, by now, most
>> people in the world know about it, it having been translated to 6,000+ 
>> languages.
>> people that misrepresented the teachings were typically labeled
>> heretics, and at the very least ostricised due to it.
>> Still I think the world has benefited, even from some "heretical"
>> perspectives, such as the holocentric world view.
> I think that it's a different situation.
> However, how can we be sure that what is written in the Bible is
> totally true? We can't.
> For instance, we have not a "paper" made by Jesus, but we can only read what 
> others
> wrote about him. So, it's not the same problem that we have here.
> And Bible isn't a political essay.
>> In any case, they aren't plagirising an opinion piece, they are
>> fabricating a skewed perspective.
> Yes, but we all know that misrepresenting someone's point of view is
> the easier way to damage him.

Aaron Wolf
music teacher,

reply via email to

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