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

[Blaise Alleyne]

On 11/02/16 11:05 AM, Joshua Gay wrote:
> On 02/11/2016 07:29 AM, Daniel Pocock wrote:
>> 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?
> 
> In some cases, yes, I believe this the purpose of us choosing a license
> that restricts redistribution of modified versions.
> 
> For example, the GNU GPL is a work that contains sections that express a
> point of view (e.g., the preamble) as well as sections that are
> functional in nature (e.g., the terms and conditions). The GNU GPL is
> published under terms that restrict modification of the work as a whole,
> but we publish an exception stating under what conditions people are
> allowed to modify and distribute portions of the work and which parts
> must be removed if you wish to distribute a modified version. The GNU
> GPL is in a sense much like a computer game in that it also combines
> creative works with works that are functional in nature.
> 
> Personally I am strong advocate for the proliferation of free cultural
> works. However, I'm not as convinced that it is an injustice to the
> world that the GNU GPL is not a free cultural work. If I found it to be
> unethically licensed, then I would most certinaly boycott its use and I
> would not work for the FSF as an employee. But I don't find the terms
> and conditions of the GNU GPL or other licenses the FSF holds copyright
> on to be unethically licensed. There are other works published by the
> FSF blur the line of being functional and in expressing a point of view.
> In some cases it is hard for me to see why licensing those works under a
> free license would be problematic, but in other situations I'm less
> confident that it is necessary or even good to distribute those works
> under a free license.
> 
> I simply can not arrive at the same clear cut conclusion that the four
> freedoms in the free software definition should be applied to all
> creative works/works that express an opinion. As such I do not condemn
> the FSF as unethical and I don't believe that they are committing a
> harmful wrongdoing to the world and to others by using nonfree license,
> even though I hold strongly to the point of view that the distribution
> of proprietary software is a harmful wrongdoing.
> 
> 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?
> 

I think there could be benefit if the GNU GPL were itself freely licensed.

I don't think copyright is an appropriate or effective tool for reaching the
objectives you describe above.

Trademark on the other hand, would be, i.e. if someone makes a "restricted
modification", they should no longer be able to refer to it as the GNU GPL.
(That's not restricting people's freedom to fork the license, but avoiding
confusion if changes are made.)