Re: Unofficial FSF Response Regarding DDF

/me yawns


"Gregory Remington" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:mailman.1047346263.6431.xaraya_curiosa-n5IRV0TL0hwRxVAL8JNkP+OyGI2DFzLe@public.gmane.org
> 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-----