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

[Blaise Alleyne]

On 11/02/16 07:08 AM, 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!
> 
> The same applies to many of our contemporaries who release their works
> under a free culture license - the folks at OpenGameArt can confirm you
> that, and I believe they are emotionally invested in their creations.
> 
> There is a strong relationship between nonfree culture and nonfree
> software. Who wants DRM? Hollywood, the music industry and book
> publishers. It seems to me that promoting free culture would benefit
> free software, in the long run.
> 
> This line of thought also affects negatively a whole category of
> software, videogames:
> 
> https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/nonfree-games.html
> 
>> Since the art in the game is not software, 
>> it is not ethically imperative to make the art free
> 
> Aside from the fact that the art in videogames is functional and thus it
> should be free (according to the GNU FSDG), this statement can only lead
> to fewer libre games which can be distributed in free distros,
> reinforcing the beliefs gamers have about libre gaming.
> 
> I can understand that the FSF wants to focus on software and it must let
> someone else campaign for free culture, but downright obstructing it
> (even when it directly affects software, in the case of videogames)
> doesn't really help our cause, especially when even a site like
> OpenSource.com is using a copyleft license, the CC BY-SA!
> 


I was fixated on this question in 2008, when I was trying to figure out how to
license my music in the wake of my commitment to software freedom.

The Definition of Free Cultural Works was circulating around this time, applying
the principles of software freedom more broadly to cultural works:
http://freedomdefined.org/


I remember asking RMS a very similar question when he was at the University of
Toronto, and aside from repeating his line on video games, he answered that he
was supportive of free culture, participated in some way in the definition of
free cultural works and supported that definition, but he didn't feel it was
*necessary* for cultural works to be free, even though it was *good*. (Also, he
considers works of opinion separately from cultural works.)


But it was Rob Myers who made this all make sense for me:
http://robmyers.org/2008/03/15/persuasion-1/

Fabio, you already mention a lot of counterarguments to the specific reasons one
might use to justify ND licensing, but it was looking at it from a level of
principle that made it all click for me.

There are two critical points that Rob crystalized for me:

1. The FSF and RMS come at freedom from with a "freedom of use" ethic. Cultural
freedom is based on a "freedom of expression" ethic.

For the FSF and RMS, it seems that freedom is only essential for tools. That
makes sense if freedom is the freedom to use. Similarly, for cultural works,
back then RMS would speak about maybe non-commercial freedoms being essential
for cultural works or something -- again, it only makes sense from that freedom
of use perspective.

But a freedom of expression ethic is broader, and a more appropriate way to
think about cultural works -- and, I think, software freedom too. It's grounded
in the same principles as software freedom, but not as narrowly focused in
thinking only about tools and usefulness in that narrow sense.


2. Stallman's "three categories" break down in practice, and aren't really an
appropriate way of draw hard lines.

So many cultural works use art to express opinions! Cultural works are *tools*
for other artists! Cultural works so frequently and naturally cross the
categories that the exceptions become the rules, and the categories breakdown
perhaps more often than they hold.

The FSF seems to have a blind-spot for artistic expression. Just like software
freedom doesn't become optional because you might need to be a programmer to
exercise certain freedoms, neither is cultural freedom optional because you
might need to be an artist to exercise certain freedoms. People ask, "why should
I care about software freedom is I'm not a programmer?", and we respond that
freedom matters for everyone. Yet, the FSF doesn't act this way with
non-software freedom.

It suggests hypocrisy to the outside world. (I don't think it *is* hypocritical,
but it can appear that way.) "Everyone should license software freely because
we're programmers and we want to be able to use software without restrictions,
but we'll happily defend the same restrictions on things that aren't software."

Cultural works are the raw material for other artistic expression -- at least,
they can be when they're free to be.



I disagree with others in this thread suggesting that the FSF is specializing in
software, not culture, and thus it shouldn't matter. I think the FSF has a blind
spot here. It may be a natural blind spot, to see freedom from the perspective
of the hacker rather than the artist, but the FSF should be able to realize how
the same principles of freedom that have been articulated and defended so well
from the software experience emerge in a very similar way as cultural works
become digital. The FSF needs to recognize this at least *enough* that it has a
*consistent* approach to its only licensing practices as a software freedom
advocacy organization. The FSF should be able to realize that software freedom
is not *only* about a freedom to use, but is *also* about a fundamental freedom
of expression.

I do agree that it's not necessarily in scope for the FSF to focus resources on
advocacy for free culture or something, but the FSF shouldn't be clouding the
waters and engaging in inconsistent licensing by using non-free licenses for its
non-software works. (Even if you're still not convinced there's an inconsistency
here, you must at least be able to agree that it's very confusing and
problematic to have the Free Software Foundation with non-free licensing all
over its website!)

It's a (small) bug in the FSF's philosophy. Non-free licensing for non-software
reveals to me that the FSF hasn't fully realized how deep its principles go,
that the FSF is a bit stuck in viewing the world only from the perspective of a
programmer. It reveals an *inconsistency* in FSF philosophy, and it creates
*confusion* for advocates of free software and free culture.

Where there are justifiable and important reasons to restrict use, there are
better means than ND licensing to achieve this: trademark, attribution,
copyleft, etc. ND licensing in particular is antithetical to the free software
ethos.

The FSF is a guiding light for software freedom. That light is made less bright
by its inconsistent commitment to freedom for non-software works, but it's
frequent and prominent use of non-free licenses for non-software. That light
could shine much brighter, much clearer, with a consistent commitment to 
freedom.

I think the FSF should adopt a consistent licensing principle, and license its
non-software works with the same commitment to freedom as its software. That
would be an easy fix for this bug.