Ciaran O'Riordan ciaran@fsfe.org wrote:
MJ Ray mjr@phonecoop.coop writes:
This is quite an attitude change to past statments by RMS like "[...] I therefore find myself constrained to reject Creative Commons entirely."
That quote has nothing to do with anything we're discussing here. There are real issues to discuss here, so let's try to stay on topic.
Sorry. Did I misunderstand that FDL 1.3 approves conversion to a CC licence? Isn't it approving CC's chequered history and future a little?
(The situation that RMS was commenting on doesn't even exist anymore. CC separated out the licences that RMS objected to, AFAICT.)
I missed that specific change and I didn't find what happened to the SamplingPlus and Developing Countries licences. However, CC remains a broad label which also covers things opposed to free software and free manuals.
Noah Slater nslater@bytesexual.org wrote:
On Tue, Nov 04, 2008 at 01:04:53AM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
Free software needs free software documentation, but the FSF seems content to redefine "free" for documentation
MJ Ray, are you arguing that "freedom" means the same in every context? Are you arguing that my freedoms under the United Kingdom's social contract should be identical to my software freedoms?
Firstly, no, clearly not. Our freedoms under the various rights Acts are far more wide-ranging. However, I don't see why free software documentation should be less free than free software.
Secondly, please send personal messages off-list.
Thus, I think it's fine that the FSF defines documentation freedom differently than it does software freedom, and in fact freedom of personal expression.
Actually, last I saw, the FSF did not define documentation freedom at all and left us trying to rebuild that pig from the FSF-licence sausages which have been produced. For example, how does having one's past copylefted wiki contributions relicensed to CC form part of a "documentation freedom" concept?
[...]
I feel you are purposefully misrepresenting the FSF on this matter. [...] Again, I feel you are deliberately misrepresenting Stallman.
I'm commenting as I feel. As far as possible, I give links so readers can decide for themselves whether they agree with the feelings that the quoted material stirred in me. If I were deliberately misrepresenting, I'd leave the links out, so reader can't check. (Noah Slater leaves the links out.)
[...]
FSF seems increasingly broken. Is it time for a developer-led organisation to fork its licences, so we can use "or later" again?
Well then, why don't you spend less time slinging mud and using current affairs to badmouth the FSF, and more time being productive?
I'd like to see whether there's wider interest in developer-led licence stewards, so I can decide whether opening my current work to more developers would be worthwhile, or a distracting waste of time.
It's not possible to do productive work directly with the FSF on its licences because the stet-centred process is deliberately inaccessible and incompatible with free software communities. stet may be useful for lawyers and big corporations, but it doesn't collaborate well. Also, *question* FSF's actions (let alone critcise them) and dozens go off the deep at you.
Regards,