Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Copyfree

[Fabio Pesari]

On 02/25/2016 09:57 PM, Aaron Wolf wrote:
>
> Copyfree represents the critique of copyleft that isn't coming from a
> pro-proprietary view. We like the idea of including diverse viewpoints
> and not being just an echo chamber. We found the Copyfree people to be
> sensible and reasonable.

A critique of copyleft that under our current legal system can only
result in more proprietary software, and thus even if it's not
pro-proprietary in theory, it is in practice.

I think we can safely admit that international copyright law will not
change in the next 5 years. Now, if that's the case, how is Copyfree
going to benefit users for the next 5 years? And 5 years are a lot for
software.

There are copyright abolitionist groups, but Copyfree simply isn't one,
because they aren't seeking copyright reform, they are merely promoting
a subset of licenses which can be easily exploited by corporations,
while throwing away the others.

Let's take some time to remember that they reject licenses which prevent
DRM. I don't care if that's seen as rejecting a "restriction" (an
ideological one, while DRM would be a real one): that's either plain
evil or naive, no matter how noble their commitment to right-wing
libertarian ideology (which is not shared by everybody) might seem.

> Sure, people should use "or later" clause, but there's copyleft licenses
> besides the GPL even. At any rate, *I* think that we can minimize
> incompatibility without giving up the copyleft tactic and that's what I
> advocate for. But I don't think everyone who takes any other view than
> mine is automatically crazy. There's merit to their view, it's simply
> not crazy.

The only other popular copyleft license for code is the MPL, and that
was created explicitly to be more lenient with proprietary code (same
about similar company-specific licenses, like the CDDL).

> Yeah, and I agree with you. But *reasonable* non-crazy people who aren't
> advocating for proprietary terms don't completely agree. We can build a
> healthy community around the idea that you see the world as black and
> white and treat everyone who disagrees with you at all as all being the
> same and all either corrupt or crazy. Sometimes you say, "there are
> people with compatible overall values that want to help our mission, and
> we include them and allow them to have a voice as long as they treat us
> reasonably too and their involvement is an overall benefit to the
> broader mission".

I don't see the world as black and white at all - in fact, black and
white reminds me of Ayn Rand, whose ideas are certainly closer to
Copyfree than free software.

If you remember, I actually praised you for collaborating with the OSI
in a previous mail, and I even if I would prefer all software to be
copylefted, I don't mind permissively licensed code.

The free software movement never rejected permissive licenses, even if
those do favor proprietary software. Copyfree, on the contrary, rejects
copyleft because of political reasons. Which movement is less pragmatic?
Which one is more idealistic? Which one is political to the point of
irrationality and self-harm?

> I'd much rather draw the line where we make it clear that the people
> advocating for proprietary software are the problem and not push out
> those free software advocates who have different tactical views or
> priorities than us.

But the point is that the Copyfree people are not free software
advocates, because they reject much of free software. They might
personally be free software advocates also, but Copyfree as a whole is
not free software advocacy at all.

I think this is factual, not my opinion. For the rest, you asked my
opinion and I gave it, without holding back, but that doesn't change the
fact that I think you are one of the better free software activists out
there, that we agree on many things and that I really hope Snowdrift
succeeds.