4 ms·

> the idea of the free software movement (...) was born as a response to fundamental conflict between a business environment (...) and independent individual cr

> the idea of the free software movement (...) was born as a response to fundamental conflict between a business environment (...) and independent individual creators This is a skewed and very narrow view. The main contrast is not between "businesses" and "individual creators", but between people who control and people who use software. For example, between governments that hire programmers to write software, and citizens that get to use this software. The idea of the free software movement is that users of any software should have the right to know exactly what the software does, and to change it as they see fit. This has really nothing to do with business. > The members of the movement are also quite often criticizing Copyright laws. Do you have a reference for that? My impression is that the FSF is quite respectful of copyright laws, and acknowledges their importance. This is an orthogonal issue to that of software freedom.

Eliah_Lakhin 4y ago
Thank you for your comment, Enriquto! > Do you have a reference for that? I didn't talk just about FSF, but about the free software movement in general. Of course individual members may have different points of view. For reference example. In the chapter "On Copyleft Maximalism and Unilateral Capitulation" of the first Article in the Thread's link: """ Draconian copyright law generally horrifies software freedom activists for good reason. Nearly all copyleft activists would prefer a true, multilateral rewriting of copyright rules that prioritized the interest of the general public and software rights. Copyleft exists primarily because of the long-standing political non-viability of a copyright law reboot. Nothing has changed in this regard; if anything, changing legislation has become an even more expensive lobbying proposition than it was at copyleft’s advent. Copyleft activists should expect, indefinitely, for proprietary software companies and media oligarchs to control copyright legislation. """ Source: https://www.fsf.org/licensing/copilot/if-software-is-my-copilot-who-programmed-my-software https://www.fsf.org/licensing/copilot/if-software-is-my-copi...
- enriquto 4y ago
  This does not seem to criticize copyright law as much as people who abuse copyright for nefarious purposes. If anything, it vouches for a reform of copyright rules to clarify the situation, not for their demise! And in no way anybody is "fighting against copyright". After all, copyleft itself is implemented using copyright, so it wouldn't make any sense (and I agree with you that it would be obviously shooting oneself in the foot). Also, FSF and other major actors always sign their writings with an explicit copyright notice.

Eliah_Lakhin 4y ago

Thank you for your comment, Enriquto! > Do you have a reference for that? I didn't talk just about FSF, but about the free software movement in general. Of course individual members may have different points of view. For reference example. In the chapter "On Copyleft Maximalism and Unilateral Capitulation" of the first Article in the Thread's link: """ Draconian copyright law generally horrifies software freedom activists for good reason. Nearly all copyleft activists would prefer a true, multilateral rewriting of copyright rules that prioritized the interest of the general public and software rights. Copyleft exists primarily because of the long-standing political non-viability of a copyright law reboot. Nothing has changed in this regard; if anything, changing legislation has become an even more expensive lobbying proposition than it was at copyleft’s advent. Copyleft activists should expect, indefinitely, for proprietary software companies and media oligarchs to control copyright legislation. """ Source: https://www.fsf.org/licensing/copilot/if-software-is-my-copilot-who-programmed-my-software https://www.fsf.org/licensing/copilot/if-software-is-my-copi...

enriquto 4y ago
This does not seem to criticize copyright law as much as people who abuse copyright for nefarious purposes. If anything, it vouches for a reform of copyright rules to clarify the situation, not for their demise! And in no way anybody is "fighting against copyright". After all, copyleft itself is implemented using copyright, so it wouldn't make any sense (and I agree with you that it would be obviously shooting oneself in the foot). Also, FSF and other major actors always sign their writings with an explicit copyright notice.