Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Copyfree

[Aaron Wolf]

On 02/25/2016 02:28 PM, Fabio Pesari wrote:
> On 02/25/2016 09:57 PM, Aaron Wolf wrote:
>>
>> Copyfree represents the critique of copyleft that isn't coming from a
>> pro-proprietary view. We like the idea of including diverse viewpoints
>> and not being just an echo chamber. We found the Copyfree people to be
>> sensible and reasonable.
> 
> A critique of copyleft that under our current legal system can only
> result in more proprietary software, and thus even if it's not
> pro-proprietary in theory, it is in practice.
> 

I agree, but only when comparing Copyfree to Copyleft. I happen to see
Copyfree as a call not strictly just opposed to copyleft but also
opposed to strangely incompatible and encumbered permissive licenses.
So, a permissive license that is Copyfree vs a permissive non-Copyfree
license both permit proprietization but the non-Copyfree may have
additional compatibility problems or other restrictions (which may or
may not be positive at all, given that Apache v2 patent clause is
arguably a positive thing, except that it does create compatibility
problems without the benefit of Copyleft, so I far prefer GPLv3 to
Apache v2, but it happens that GPLv3 was written to be Apache v2
compatible, but other non-Copyfree-non-copyleft licenses exist and I'd
generally have this feeling: Copyleft is best, and if not copyleft, then
copyfree is preferable generally to other permissive terms)

Anyway, if you compare copyfree to proprietary, obviously copyfree is
better. So, I only oppose copyfree when the alternative is copyleft. I
prefer copyleft, of course.


> I think we can safely admit that international copyright law will not
> change in the next 5 years. Now, if that's the case, how is Copyfree
> going to benefit users for the next 5 years? And 5 years are a lot for
> software.
> 
> There are copyright abolitionist groups, but Copyfree simply isn't one,
> because they aren't seeking copyright reform, they are merely promoting
> a subset of licenses which can be easily exploited by corporations,
> while throwing away the others.
> 

The Copyfee Initiative happens to be people who are copyright
abolitionists but have a particular initiative for working within the
system today. It is a matter of perspective about the impact of the
licenses they promote. You and I see Copyfree licenses as having the
main feature being exploitable by proprietary software. The Copyfree
folks see that as an unfortunate side-effect and promote them for other
reasons. They are still free software advocates. There's a whole
community of these sorts of people in the *BSD world. You're perfectly
reasonable to call them misguided, but that's our opinion, they're still
allies, just perhaps misguided allies (but not misguided in all
respects, just on this topic). I'm not convinced that they are *really*
misguided, I'm just still a copyleft advocate myself.


> Let's take some time to remember that they reject licenses which prevent
> DRM. I don't care if that's seen as rejecting a "restriction" (an
> ideological one, while DRM would be a real one): that's either plain
> evil or naive, no matter how noble their commitment to right-wing
> libertarian ideology (which is not shared by everybody) might seem.
> 

Again, I agree with you.

I should clarify that I'm not sure how much I want to publicly emphasize
the Copyfree alliance or anything. They're not a reputable or known
organization anyway. We have *not* put them in the partners list in the
Snowdrift.coop footer, and we don't aim to. We *do* want it to be clear
that their views will not be censored, their voices are welcome to be a
part of the community. We haven't really formalized any significant
partnership though, aside from the Copyfree founder being an advisor
(and a useful one in all sorts of ways, he's a nice guy with sincere
free software beliefs).

>> Sure, people should use "or later" clause, but there's copyleft licenses
>> besides the GPL even. At any rate, *I* think that we can minimize
>> incompatibility without giving up the copyleft tactic and that's what I
>> advocate for. But I don't think everyone who takes any other view than
>> mine is automatically crazy. There's merit to their view, it's simply
>> not crazy.
> 
> The only other popular copyleft license for code is the MPL, and that
> was created explicitly to be more lenient with proprietary code (same
> about similar company-specific licenses, like the CDDL).
> 
>> Yeah, and I agree with you. But *reasonable* non-crazy people who aren't
>> advocating for proprietary terms don't completely agree. We can build a
>> healthy community around the idea that you see the world as black and
>> white and treat everyone who disagrees with you at all as all being the
>> same and all either corrupt or crazy. Sometimes you say, "there are
>> people with compatible overall values that want to help our mission, and
>> we include them and allow them to have a voice as long as they treat us
>> reasonably too and their involvement is an overall benefit to the
>> broader mission".
> 
> I don't see the world as black and white at all - in fact, black and
> white reminds me of Ayn Rand, whose ideas are certainly closer to
> Copyfree than free software.
> 

Yup.

> If you remember, I actually praised you for collaborating with the OSI
> in a previous mail, and I even if I would prefer all software to be
> copylefted, I don't mind permissively licensed code.
> 

Indeed. I didn't mean to suggest you were fundamentally a black-white
thinker. It was just a general comment. Apologies for implying anything
about you personally.

> The free software movement never rejected permissive licenses, even if
> those do favor proprietary software. Copyfree, on the contrary, rejects
> copyleft because of political reasons. Which movement is less pragmatic?
> Which one is more idealistic? Which one is political to the point of
> irrationality and self-harm?
> 

The Copyfree Initiative isn't a movement, isn't competing with the Free
Software movement. It's just an initiative to *emphasize* their
preferred licenses. They still believe that Copyleft is far better than
proprietary.

>> I'd much rather draw the line where we make it clear that the people
>> advocating for proprietary software are the problem and not push out
>> those free software advocates who have different tactical views or
>> priorities than us.
> 
> But the point is that the Copyfree people are not free software
> advocates, because they reject much of free software. They might
> personally be free software advocates also, but Copyfree as a whole is
> not free software advocacy at all.
> 
> I think this is factual, not my opinion. For the rest, you asked my
> opinion and I gave it, without holding back, but that doesn't change the
> fact that I think you are one of the better free software activists out
> there, that we agree on many things and that I really hope Snowdrift
> succeeds.
> 

Thanks. Again, I'm pretty staunchly copyleft in all respects. I pushed
people here in Portland to come see Bradley's "Future of Copyleft" talk
when he moved here last year.

I just see a lot of real bullshit from proprietary-focused copyleft
critics and I'd be happy to see them move toward principled Copyfree
arguments instead of the real bullshit. And I do like emphasizing that
Snowdrift.coop welcomes the participation of people who want our mission
to succeed but may not hold the particular views I hold. The Copyfree
people would love to see the success of an economic system in which we
remove the incentives to make proprietary software, we all voluntarily
work together to fund free software and only free software. That's the
Snowdrift.coop dream.

I think Snowdrift.coop can't succeed enough without copyleft in
practice, but these are tactical arguments still. People who believe in
other tactics are still welcome to participate in the discussion. In
this case, if the people in question were predictable, dogmatic
extremists, their participation would be of little value, and I wouldn't
encourage it. In reality, while the Copyfree website may not give this
impression, the folks behind that are non-extremist reasonable people
who participated in productive discussion.