4 ms·
There's a certain smell of hypocrisy in the FSF publishing these without allowing derivatives. So I was reading this article kind of wanting for it to be convi
by emn13 10y ago
There's a certain smell of hypocrisy in the FSF publishing these without allowing derivatives. So I was reading this article kind of wanting for it to be convincing. But the argumentation is pretty weak - that's being nice, it's essentially absent. The only substantive argument suggests the FSF gospel could be spread much further if derivatives could literally copy - I doubt it.
Nobody is preventing you from normal critique and commentary, so "no derivatives" isn't actually as restrictive as he implies; nor does "no derivatives" mean "no derivative ideas". It just means the actual, literal text. And when it comes to political speech (which this is), fair use is going to carve large exemptions anyhow - at least, to any derivative worth having (see: the four factor test).
So yeah. Smells a little hypocritical to disallow derivatives. But this article sure doesn't convince me it matters at all.
- ue_ 10y agoI see no hypocrisy at all. The FSF campaigns for software freedom, not necessarily for freedom with regard to works of art. Whether software is a work of art or not is irrelevant. I'm all for public domain with works of art, but it's simply not a battle the FSF has chosen to fight. Stallman himself has said that he has no problem with NoDerivs on his own work, or other people's work. This is why his website is mostly a "verbatim distribution is allowed in any form..." or something like that. I see no issue here at all, and I think it's quite wrong for the author to attack the FSF over this, espeically when there are other things one could complain about (such as linking to MELPA not being allowed on the Emacs mailing list because MELPA d(id|oes)n't have the license for their JS specified as the FSF wants it. I don't mean to criticise the FSF, they're a very good organisation in my eyes and I hope they continue doing what they do.
- ewzimm 10y agoI would take that further and say that using restrictive licenses for opinions shows that the FSF is serious about freedom and not just biased against the idea of restrictive licenses.
- emn13 10y agoI don't disagree. It looks suspicious (the ND license). If you will: it's no noxious odor; it's a faint whiff. But the article doesn't uncover anything that backs up this superficial unease with something solid.
- dragonwriter 10y ago> Nobody is preventing you from normal critique and commentary, so "no derivatives" isn't actually as restrictive as he implies; nor does "no derivatives" mean "no derivative ideas". It just means the actual, literal text. A work can be legally derivative without any literal copying.