Unofficial FSF Response Regarding DDF

I am putting the issue to rest for now regarding the need for the DDF 
when there is the FSF. I'm not against the idea of the DDF so much as 
wondering why we need to duplicate efforts seperately rather than 
combine efforts. 

Why can't the DDF "publically" work hand in hand with the FSF as 
described in the email from GNU web master Ray Soucy below?

I promise I'll pay DDF membership dues :)

Greg

WARNING: Unsanitized content follows.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

  Ray Soucy Wrote:

  > It's hard for me to follow web links, could you please paste the 
text
  > in question in the future?  It would save me a lot of time, as I 
read
  > my e-mail via a shell session on FSF servers.

  Sure. It's a bit more complicated than a question. We have 60+ GPL 
  developers scratching their heads here. This is a very unusual 
  situation between 2 GPL development camps sharing a similar code 
base 
  (fork). 

  It would help if you could skim the context of the discussion when 
you 
  have time. There are some questions regarding a legal entity called 
the 
  DDF (Digital Development Foundation) who wishes to perform similar 
  functions as the FSF but wishes to cover both Open Source and GPL. 
The 
  DDF's primary focus is the Xaraya GPL code base.

  Some of us are a little unclear as to the DDF's motives. I have 
  selected the 3 relavent emails out of 30+ between 2 listserv 
  discussions that are overlapping. The last email is a little bias. 
  Scott Kindley does not trust some of the members on the DDF board 
  becuase of past issues but brings up some relevant concerns. Sorry 
for 
  the length of this email but the context is important. 

  We would appreciate an official FSF/GNU stance on new legal entities 
  who wish to help perform similar functions as the FSF regarding the 
GPL 
  copyleft please. How can such new FSF entities be useful? What are 
the 
  legal requirements for becoming and FSF like organization and 
  protecting developers rights under the GPL?


Greg

Sorry if this comes off as being a bit opinionated, but after the
amount of reading you have sent me, I tend to attach myself to the
issue at hand.

After reading the message, and giving a little thought on the subject,
I see no good reason for the existance of the DDF.  The FSF's position
is that instead of trying to create seperate efforts, why not help
us.  If you disagree with the way we do things maybe they can be
discussed, or prehaps your motives are diferent from ours.

The Open Source Initiative was started in the same manner that the DDF
wishes to form.  The Open Source movement has not helped Free
Software, it has undermined the cause that the Free Software
Foundation has been fighting since 1984.  It is my personal belife
that the damage to the FSF from the Open Source movement is
substancial.  Instead of promoting the philosophies behind Free
Software, they have focused only on the technicle benifits of Free
Software.  If the battle field is completely technicle, it will be
very hard to fight multi-billion dollar corporations such as
Microsoft.  In fact, I anticipate that if it comes down to technical
superority, non-free software will win.

Groups such as OSI have based their entire exsistance on being more
"Business Friendly" and "Marketable".  I ask you this: What is more
marketable than giving your customers Freedom?  The philosiphy behind
Free Software is the best marketing tool there is.  We simply need to
show people that being called a "pirate" and risking going to jail for
something as good intensioned as sharing with your neighbor is not
only wrong, but completely unnecessairy, and they will be more willing
to support Free Software, rather than non-free software.

People from other groups like to accuse the FSF of beeing too
controlive, and not democratic enough.  Where others call it a
weakness we see it as strength.  The vision and goals of the FSF will
never be corrupted and mutated into something different.  The
responsibility held by the FSF is a large one.  Much effort goes into
defending our two licences, and enforceing them.  They are enforced by
law, and writen word, not philosophy; even though they are esentially
an echo of our philosophies in legal form.  We will not risk the
integrity of the GPL or the Free Software movement to satisfy the
needs and desires of a select few.  The FSF is about Freedom, it
always has been, and it always will be.

The FSF is an organization that can, and does defend the GPL.  We
defend it without compromise because we created it, and it's what we
belive in.  Assigning copyright to the FSF is the best way to ensure
your program will always be Free Software.  I would be cautious of
assigning copyright to an organization I know nothing about, that
simply tells you their intensions, but have nothing to back up their
claims of good intension. 

The idea that the DDF can enforce "Open Source" approved licences the
same way the FSF enforces the GPL and LGPL are not practical, and most
likely, a goal that can not be achived.  There are a plethera of these
approved licenses, enforcing them correctly requires a strong
understanding of each and every one, as well as copyright laws.  The
amount of lawyers, and legal scholors required to actually do this
correctly would be more than I can imagine are willing do devote their
time to this effort.  There are also finincial needs to enforce things
of this nature... the list of possible points of failure goes on in
something like this.

It comes down to more of an issue of trust.  Because the FSF has been
arround for a very long time (in terms of software), we have seen them
in action, we know what they stand for, and we can predict how they
act.  We know nothing about this new "DDF", we know noting of their
true motives, or intensions, and further more, there is no good reason
for the exsistance of an organization trying to do what they say they
are trying to do.  

Publishers gained their power by tricking authors into assigning them
copyright.  The authors were the first to coin the term "Pirate" when
they spoke of the publishers who took their work and left them with
near nothing.  The FSF in turn offers the opposite to people, you
assign copyright to the FSF, and the FSF defends it, and is backed by
some of the biggest names in law today.  We take care of making sure
that your code stays free. 

If you share the views of the FSF, I would recomend you not support
this new group, as they will most likely further harm our cause.  We
don't recomend assigning copyright to anyone but yourself, or (if you
would like us to defend it for you) us (the FSF).

Hopefully in the coming months the FSF will be able to show people
that Free Software is not only "marketable", but more "marketable"
than "Open Source" software.  Remember, it's Free as in Freedom, not
free as in price.

I beg you to keep in mind that there is a difference between copyright
and patent laws, a very big difference.  The comments made here sugest
otherwise.

The copyright holder can attach a license to any copy he or she
wishes.  The license only effects that copy, and copies under it.  So
you can release the same code under the GPL as well as a non-free
license at the same time.  For this reason, you must be carful who you
assign copyright to.  Even if you license your code under the GPL, and
then assign copyright, the copyright holder can change the licence
that the work is distributed under.  So Free Software can become
non-free software.  A license applys to a "copy" of the work, not the
work itself.  That is copyright.  It is patents which cover the work
itself.  Software Patents are very dangerous to Free Software for this
reason.

rps
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.6 
<http://mailcrypt.sourceforge.net/>;

iD8DBQE+bSgUqtFuEOIMGE4RAn2kAKC8BwltfVfBK+E1tfRImc8D57gaCgCeKkYP
bBf79WhzGEpgxbDnjdSC3OI=
=hkGA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----