Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Copyfree

[Aaron Wolf]

On 02/25/2016 08:54 AM, Fabio Pesari wrote:
> On 02/25/2016 05:00 PM, Aaron Wolf wrote:
>>
>> Oh that's absolutely correct, but *we* aren't Copyfree. We're AGPLv3+. I
>> am a strong copyleft advocate myself.
> 
> I know, but you are associating with them. I don't like the OSI, but at
> least free software and open source are largely compatible in terms of
> licenses, Copyfree isn't.
> 
>> The point is that we acknowledge the position of the Copyfree folks.
>> They are not the proprietary people wanting to restrict things, they are
>> the hardcore anti-copyright people who reject the whole nature of
>> government-granted monopolies. They are anti-proprietary *and*
>> anti-copyleft out of principle.
> 
> If they only accepted works in the public domain, I would agree with
> you. That would not be unreasonable, it would be consistent.
> 
> But they explicitly _reject_ copyleft and anti-DRM licenses, while
> accepting _licenses_ which benefit proprietaries. That's not the same thing.
> 
> They also don't mention copyright abolition anywhere in their homepage,
> but they make some claims about Copyfree making my life "easier". How?
> 
>> Again, *I* am a copyleft supporter myself. But I acknowledge that there
>> *exists* this principled Copyfree approach that wants to avoid all forms
>> of legal encumberance and legal incompatibilities, and I acknowledge
>> that view is different than the far-too-common version of anti-copyleft
>> which basically is pro-proprietary.
> 
> I know you are a copyleft supporter, and respect you for choosing
> copyleft, but I don't see why the Copyfree "people" (are the more than
> one?) _should_ be acknowledged.
> 
> Everybody ignored them so far - I had never heard about them and I've
> been using free software for more than a decade - why give them the
> attention they don't deserve?
> 
>> For reference, the Copyfree guy is not actually involved actively any
>> more. Also, he's a very nice reasonable person who isn't opposed to us
>> or our use of AGPL really.
> 
> I don't doubt that! I am not expressing any judgements about the people
> involved, only about their ideas.
> 
>> The whole Copyfree thing has been done in a way that *promotes* their
>> Copyfree "pure libertarian" style things (which again, is not my view)
> 
> This seems entirely political, unlike "open source" (practical) and free
> software (ethical), with no basis in reality (i.e. people will just take
> your code and make it proprietary).
> 
> If they are as pure as you claim, I want to see them claim that a man
> should be free to kill another man. If they don't, they have double
> standards and if they do, they are insane!
> 

I didn't say they were insane extremist anarchists. If they were, I
wouldn't associate with them at all. They are specifically people who
oppose copyright and patent laws, not *all* laws. (which is my position
too, I just want copyright and patent abolition to be paired with (A)
prohibition of DRM and (B) mandatory source release for published works,
and the Copyfree folks actually agree with this, per our discussions;
they oppose DRM but just see that as an issue beyond the Copyfree stuff).

Yes, this stuff is political, more than OSI, but it's not *that*
political. The primary reason it isn't just an emphasis on public domain
is because of the legal quirks of the inadequacies of public domain in
practice today. Absolutely *nothing* that is "Copyfree" is any better
for proprietary advocates or any worse for software freedom than public
domain. The Copyfree licenses do nothing to promote proprietary software
any more than public domain software does.


>> more than it focuses on attacking copyleft. That's not to say they like
>> copyleft, but they don't go around spreading misinformation. They don't
>> say "copyleft is evil, kill the GPL" or "GPL is bad for 'Open Source'"
>> etc. They basically take an ethical position that is a different tactic
>> than the one we prefer, but they are on the side of freedom, and this
>> view exists. It truly and sincerely opposes proprietary software, which
>> is what really matters.
> 
> If so, they care less about the freedom of users rather than the
> abstract concept of freedom. Is that healthy?
> 

It's not especially healthy. It's valuing principle over practical
concerns. They want no place in which copyright interferes with software
freedom *even* if the interference is a copyleft tactic protecting
freedom by blocking proprietization.

This is a political value question: do we support *stopping* proprietary
software even if it *hurts* free software by causing incompatibilities?
I say "hmm, tough question, but I lean toward 'yes' better to accept the
incompatibility-side-effects in order to block proprietary software".
The Copyfree folks say "better to accept the side-effect of proprietary
derivatives in order to maximize compatibility for those of us using
free software". That view isn't crazy.

These are internal debates within free software about the trade-offs of
different tactics. I'm acknowledging their view as legitimate even if
it's not my view.


> Also, if they truly oppose proprietary software, why do the licenses
> they pick create even more proprietary software? It doesn't make any sense!
> 

They don't pick them in *order* to create more proprietary software
(which is *not* an inevitable result). It's the same way in which we
didn't pick AGPL in *order* to create incompatibilities. None of us want
proprietary software *or* incompatibilities. The question is which
trade-offs we prefer.