Re: Unofficial FSF Response Regarding DDF

That was an intelligent response :)

> /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-----
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Xaraya_curiosa mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.xaraya.com/mailman/listinfo/xaraya_curiosa