GFDL 1.3

Noah Slater nslater at bytesexual.org
Tue Nov 4 15:01:18 UTC 2008


On Tue, Nov 04, 2008 at 02:36:00PM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
> > 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?

No. You are conflating a license with an organisation.

The FSF approves of free software licenses linked to the OSI and other
organisations it might otherwise argue with in the general case. I fail to see
how this is a contradiction, and I feel that you are trying to confuse people.

> > (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.

Yes, maybe this would be an issue if the FDL was facilitating a switch to ANY of
the Creative Commons licenses, which it clearly is not. Why must you insist that
these to things are related in anyway?

> 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.

It's not "less" free, this is an absurd thing to state.

The word "free" simply means different things in different contexts.

If you can see that "free" society is different from "free" software, which may
also be different from "free" speech, why can't you also see that "free"
documentation may mean something different too?

Sure, to you and to Debian "free" software and "free" documentation mean the
same thing, but to me and the FSF it doesn't. I do not argue with your right to
hold that opinion, but I argue with the way that your frame it in your argument.

> but the FSF seems content to redefine "free" for documentation

You seem to be implying that your definition of "free" documentation is somehow
the original, or the true, version and the FSF has snuck in and redefined it for
you without asking, which is an absurd implication. The FSF defined "free"
documentation long before Debian or (I presume) you did. It is you who have
redefined the FSF's position and are using your redefinition to accuse them of
some illusory position change!

Either you're confused or you are trying to confuse.

> Secondly, please send personal messages off-list.

It wasn't a personal message, sorry if I offended you.

> > 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.

Are you kidding?

How is producing a license not the ultimate definition of what they consider free?

> [...]
> > 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.)

I leave the links out? What?

> 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.

(emphasis mine)

This is *quite* a statement, do you care to back it up?

> stet may be useful for lawyers and big corporations, but it doesn't
> collaborate well.

But writing a license is *fundamentally* different from writing code.

We're talking about producing a legal document. This takes people with decades
of legal experience and training. The "patches welcome", "lets do this on a
wiki" approach isn't going to work.

> Also, *question* FSF's actions (let alone critcise them) and dozens go off the
> deep at you.

Not at all, I am a strong critic of the FSF when I feel that they have done
something I dislike, but I get the impression from some of *your* messages that
you like to take any excuse to shift the topic onto FSF bashing.

Best,

-- 
Noah Slater, http://bytesexual.org/nslater



More information about the Discussion mailing list