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

[Erik Moeller]

2016-02-11 8:05 GMT-08:00 Joshua Gay <jgay@fsf.org>:

> Out of curiousity, for those that do strongly believe all works should
> be freely licensed, do you believe that GNU GPL, is therefore itself a
> work that is an injustice to those who recieve it and that it should be
> condemned and avoided?

As an intellectual monopoly rights abolitionist, I acknowledge that
there are many positive steps along the way. The GPL and similar tools
are a huge accomplishment and their non-modifiability is a negligible
issue compared with the wonderful achievements they have made
possible. Indeed in a world that has IMRs, restricting modification of
licenses is at least a plausible instrument against license
proliferation, which is a real risk as we have seen in past decades.

ND seems a particularly poor choice for the FSF's website, however. It
creates legal impediments for collective action and essentially
reduces the entire FSF's website to "the opinion of an individual".
Even the translations that are present are not permitted under the ND
license, so the right to create such translations is only implicitly
granted, not explicitly. A wiki like LibrePlanet (which uses the FDL,
itself a poor choice for a wiki because of its cumbersome
requirements) would obviously not be possible under ND.

Using ND for a website may create long term risks as the original
copyright holder(s) become unavailable to provide permissions needed
for changes, necessitating wholesale replacement of texts where
partial adaptation might have done the job.

As for the protection of opinions, one could exempt key documents of
opinion from a license change if absolutely necessary. I personally
don't believe that this is a good protection against people misusing
or misquoting your words.

First, the risks seem mostly abstract. Have there been any recorded
instances of a licensing claim being brought under the ND license
against someone improperly using opinions presented on the FSF
website? Do we have any evidence of a deterrent effect these terms
have had on actions which needed to be prevented? Do we have, in
contrast, evidence of opinions that have been shared under freely
licensed terms being misrepresented in ways that their authors felt
powerless against?

Second, there are many other social and political tools beyond
copyright law which can be brought to bear against people who act
immorally by deliberately misquoting or misrepresenting one's views.
Indeed, most of us would choose to use such tools well before
resorting to the blunt instrument of a copyright claim.

The most common misuse scenarios I've seen were of photographs, music
or videos being used in conjunction with, or to promote, activities by
individuals the licensor considered reprehensible (e.g., using music
as campaign songs), often in ways an ND license would not in fact have
prevented. In most of those cases I'm aware of, the licensor did not
in fact bring legal action, but simply spoke out against the use,
embarrassing the individual or company. The voice of the undisputed
author of a work carries great weight, regardless of the license they
chose for their work.

Warmly,
Erik