Re: Unofficial FSF Response Regarding DDF

drama bores me


"Gregory Remington" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:mailman.1047358981.32350.xaraya_curiosa-n5IRV0TL0hwRxVAL8JNkP+OyGI2DFzLe@public.gmane.org
> 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