[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: Patrick Anderson
Subject: Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Fwd: The FSF Allows No Derivatives]
Date: Wed, 27 May 2015 09:47:27 -0600

According to those who would apply the
GNU GPL to software and ND to opinion,
I wonder which license I should (ideally)
use to write software that expresses opinion.

On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 9:01 AM, Aaron Wolf <> wrote:
> On 05/27/2015 07:48 AM, Yoni Rabkin wrote:
>>  choosing to make personal
>> opinions immutable
> That's not what ND does. ND stops other people from doing creative
> things that draw upon your work. Your personal opinions are yours alone
> regardless of any of this. Nobody else can change them.
>> I have yet to see a practical discussion about a specific
>> one of those pieces, a different license, and what the community would
>> gain (outside of the general principles and the general argument, which
>> has been revisited many times over thus far.)
> Then you haven't been reading. One of the most valuable and important
> derivative works already made of Richard's stuff is a video that cuts
> out longer pauses so his speech is a better and shorter thing to view.
> That's a violation of ND.
> Another thing mentioned was change of medium, such as someone using
> Richard's text unchanged in a video about software freedom.
> Emphasis has been made about translations.
> Anyway, ND is an anti-Wikipedia and ant-commons license. It's frankly
> *impossible* for Richard to both keep ND terms and *grant* someone
> permission to use his writing in a very respectful, completely accurate
> way when mixed with CC-BY-SA material. For example, I might take your
> blog writings, Richard's writings, and some wonderful CC-BY-SA artwork
> and music and create a video promoting software freedom. Well, that's
> illegal. Why? Maybe Richard thinks my use of his *unaltered* words is
> perfectly fineā€¦ but I *have* to license my video as CC-BY-SA because
> that is the SA part of respecting everyone else's contributions to the
> commons.
> I cannot make a video that says "This is CC-BY-SA, except for that text,
> that stuff is ND, which means if you make a derivative of this video,
> you can't include that text without Richard's permission" because that
> would violate the terms from the musician whose music is being played in
> the background.
> This incompatibility means that even derivatives that authors *like*
> can't happen.
> There's a ton of compelling arguments about why ND is wrong, and I've
> posted links to other articles and resources about this.
> Nobody defending ND has actually addressed any of these points or made
> any substantive arguments actually showing why ND helps anything. I'd be
> happy to discuss or address those points if they exist.

reply via email to

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