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

[Blaise Alleyne]

On 11/02/16 07:29 AM, Daniel Pocock wrote:
> 
> 
> On 11/02/16 13:08, Fabio Pesari wrote:
>> I know this is going to be controversial and I understand that the FSF
>> is about software and not culture but in truth, I disagree with the
>> FSF's (and the GNU project's) usage of nonfree cultural licenses (like
>> the CC-BY-ND).
>>
>> I disagree with the idea that things that express a subjective point of
>> view do not have to be free. Some software expresses a subjective POV,
>> and most art does: before copyright laws, all works of art, religion and
>> science used to be technically free, but that didn't stop people from
>> creating them!
>>
>> The argument that using a free license lets a personal POV get "twisted"
>> is faulty, because doing that is libellous (a crime) and I don't see
>> anybody putting words in the mouths of Leo Tolstoy, Leonardo da Vinci
>> and H.P. Lovecraft (all authors whose works are in the public domain).
>> Attribution is not defamation!
>>
> 
> 
> It is not just about defamation
> 
> People may actively work on something (e.g. a paper or some slides) to
> promote a particular point of view (e.g. Free Software)
> 
> Somebody else may take 90% of the slides and just change 10% of them and
> start using them to promote a similar point of view (e.g. Open Source)
> 
> Is the FSF using nonfree licenses as a tactic to prevent that?
> 

If this is the rationale, it always struck me as either really ill-advised, or
an abuse/misunderstanding of copyright.

Copyright can't do what's described above.

Fair use, parody allowances, etc., could still make many objectionable things
from a software freedom perspective possible from a free speech perspective.

In the area of works of opinion, the notion that copyright should be used to
restrict expression we don't agree with is an abuse of copyright -- not only do
I believe it to be inappropriate, but it's also not very effective.

What's required to preserve free speech in the area of opinion is just *proper
attribution*. I can't stop people from saying what they want, but they shouldn't
be able to pretend that I said something I didn't.