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

[Blaise Alleyne]

On 12/02/16 12:24 PM, Tobias Platen wrote:
> 
> 
> On 02/12/2016 06:04 PM, Blaise Alleyne wrote:
>> 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.)
>>
>>
> 
> Copyleft requires that the exact license text is passed to all readers and
> users. One can still modify the GPL, but that modified licence needs a 
> different
> name, as it is not the original work. [...]

Totally agree. If the licenses is modified, it's no longer "the GNU GPL."

Point is, you don't need proprietary licensing of the text of the GNU GPL to
accomplish this.