Re: [libreplanet-discuss] What do you think about the FSF using/endorsing nonfree cultural works?

[Aaron Wolf]

This has been brought up in past threads with quite thorough
back-and-forth. The people who don't support free culture either just
continued to insist that it doesn't matter (i.e. they just don't get it)
or that FSF isn't the org to care about it (which has some merit) or
repeat erroneous arguments, ignoring evidence otherwise (i.e. ignoring
that CC BY and CC BY-SA have clauses requiring the removal of
endorsements, the marking of modifications, and even the removal of
attribution upon request).

I don't think the GPL example is a good one as it would be fair use to
create a license very similar to the GPL. If the GPL itself were CC
BY-SA, then the FSF could insist on derivatives *not* carrying the "GNU"
name anyway. Regardless, if someone wrote "Joe's GPL" that was different
but similar to the GNU GPL and had some of the same clauses, the FSF
would not sue them, and they probably would have total fair use
arguments, and everyone would just treat it as a new and different
license that was just similar to the GNU GPL.

I understand those who say that these things are fuzzy, who don't see
the need for a hard line for free cultural works. What they miss is that
the same arguments for fuzziness and not having hard lines apply to
software too. If you have some code where you can review the source,
compile from source, you know what it is doing (i.e. nothing malicious),
but the terms don't respect all four freedoms, then such software is
almost certainly as benign as non-free culture (i.e. not as good as
free, but not horrendous or unambiguously unethical). Software is fuzzy
too. Most software is *not* essential, and yet *some* cultural works are
extremely valuable and important (and the ability to adapt them carries
significant power ramifications).

In practice, the creative cultural process could improve the FSF's
messaging, but non-free terms hamper that, and we don't know what we're
missing. And this is not about one-time permissions, this is about
enabling the process overall, including the mixing with other free works
for a total better result.

The only arguments that hold merit in defense of FSF's non-free terms on
writings and such are: that it isn't hypocritical (which is true), and
that the FSF simply wants to retain more power here over the messaging
(which can be applied equally well as an argument for non-free software,
but is, when expressed honestly, at least a reasonable argument). I
think the FSF's non-free terms here are unfortunate and problematic.

Respectfully,
Aaron