Re: Press Action Hero of the Week

Aaron S. Hawley wrote:
> But I think you may be inferring too much by combining this quote of
> d'Amyery and his web site's copying policy.  I believe he is exercising
> the original motives of Copyright law: that which aids authors and their
> work.  He's not trying to patent anything.

I'm sure I was inferring too much, but this is one of those things I love
ranting about.

> Like d'Aymery, I'm pretty sure I use Copyright law when I use the GNU Free
> Documentation License[1] (FDL) when I consequently make copying,
> publishing, and redistribution demands of my own work.

[ Have you heard that Debian doesn't consider the FDL Free and is considering
excluding all FDL'ed work!?  See the debian-legal mailing list and
http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/Position_Statement.xhtml ]

Well sure, but it's not the use of copyright law that I have problems with.
It's how it is used.  You use copyright law to ensure freedoms.  Swan's uses
it to deny freedoms.  Of course, that's a reasonable thing to do; it's what
most of the world does.  Had this been any other publication, I wouldn't have
wasted my breathe pointing out a fairly standard copying policy.  But this is
supposed to be "the truth will set you free" kind of work, which in my mind
isn't consistent with non-Free Idea publication.

Free Ideas are a matter of the users' freedom to use, copy, distribute, study,
change and improve the idea.  More precisely, it refers to four kinds of
freedom, for the users of the idea:

0) The freedom to use the idea, for any purpose.
1) The freedom to study how the idea works, and adapt it to your needs.
Access to the idea is a precondition for this.
2) The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor.
3) The freedom to improve the idea, and release your improvements to the
public, so that the whole community benefits. Access to the idea is a
precondition for this.

Being free to do these things means (among other things) that you do not have
to ask or pay for permission.

> "... Kindly understand that none of the contributors is financially
> compensated for his or her work. But it is nonetheless his or her work.
> Each contributor has spent time and creativity to produce the columns that
> are published on this site. Therefore, beside the legal obligation you
> have to contact the author if you are interested in reproducing a
> commentary, to ask permission to use a material is a simple matter of
> courtesy and intellectual decency. It's a way to acknowledge someone's
> work and sweat. Thank you. ..."[2]

I really don't buy this argument that asking permission under legal obligation
shows respect to the author.  Using the author's work, having it influence the
world at large, that's respect.  Millions of computers run GNU/Linux.  That's
respect.  If you take your ideas seriously, you'll release them as Free Ideas.

Jereme is right when he says the Free software movement is the last viable
revolution, in part because it has nothing to do (specifically) with software.

David

_______________________________________________
heads mailing list
[email protected]
http://ballistichelmet.org/mailman/listinfo/heads/
http://ballistichelmet.org/donate/