GFDL 1.3

[MJ Ray]

Ciaran O'Riordan <ciaran at fsfe.org> wrote:
> MJ Ray <mjr at 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 at 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,
-- 
MJ Ray (slef)
Webmaster for hire, statistician and online shop builder for a small
worker cooperative http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ http://mjr.towers.org.uk/
(Notice http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html) tel:+44-844-4437-237