RMS says Creative Commons Unacceptable 647
Mr A Coward writes "Richard Stallman has stated in an interview that he no longer supports Creative Commons licenses. In the interview carried on LinuxP2P.com, and which is largely about the P2P and DRM issues, Stallman ends by saying: 'I no longer endorse Creative Commons. I cannot endorse Creative Commons as a whole, because some of its licenses are unacceptable.' He suggests instead using the GPL for creative works." The crux of his argument is that, since he disagrees with some of the CC licenses, and people tend to lump them all together, he feels compelled to reject them all. What's your take? Are some Creative Commons licenses worth using, even if others aren't?
What bunk! (Score:4, Insightful)
RMS: People have a right to share copies of published works; P2P programs are simply a means to do it more usefully, and that is a good thing.
If we are going to mince words maybe we should start with an honest appraisal of the difference between sharing (as in borrowing a book) and copying. All of us who make a living being creative understand the shortcomings of current copyright legislation and know that we need people to think about creative work in new ways if we are going to take IP law into the 21st century; we know tilting in favor of multi-national corporations at the expense of individuals is a mistake, but we are not going to get anywhere with the type of lazy thinking which asserts things like, "If copyright law forbids people from sharing, copyright law is wrong." I'll take Lawrence Lessig's [lessig.org] ideas over Mr. Stallman's any day.
Re:What bunk! (Score:5, Insightful)
So, please explain to me how you can have a sane system of laws that restrict things like sharing over P2p and don't restrict things like letting a friend read a book. In a digital world, I do not believe this is possible.
So, I would say that in the final analysis Lessig's ideas reduce to Stallman's. They are just more palatable to you because they seem to say something different, and you hold out some forlorn hope that there is a reasonable way to restrict digital copies.
Re:What bunk! (Score:4, Insightful)
'sharing over P2P' doesn't make sense. When it is over, you have a copy, and I have a copy. You are not 'sharing' your copy, you are creating and giving me a copy.
This isn't rocket science, people!
Re:What bunk! (Score:3, Insightful)
Uh, huh. So, you have to copy a program from disk into memory in order for it to run. Is that illegal? How about if you have a huge cluster?
Also, tell me how you restrict making a copy without breaking into people's computers or putting police chips in everything? Which is worse, a world in which people can freely copy stuff, or a world in which every single move you make with anything digital is carefully monitored so you can't? There isn't much of an in-between here you know. I you don't have the c
Re:What bunk! (Score:3, Interesting)
If such a DRM scheme was possible without tamper we would indeed have the perfect 'sharing' mechanism.
Re:What bunk! (Score:3, Insightful)
You can't give someone a safe with a bar of gold in it, and the combination to the safe, and then let them take that safe home and expect them not to be able to take the bar of gold out. They have all the information necessary to do it, and eventually somebody will.
When you start going dow
Re:What bunk! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What bunk! (Score:4, Insightful)
Sure you can, if you write from memory a new book, with whatever mangled data you have. That is why copyright applies to "derrived work".
That is the real issue.
The real issue is that due to being under the spell of their incessent propaganda, you have done what all of these swindlers of "intellectual property" always try to induce: to try to deny the properties of information and talk about "selling" it, as a part of a system for rewarding artists. Information cannot be sold, it lacks the fundamental characteristics for it to be so. Also, the two are completely different and separate. There are many possible methods to reward artists, which do not involve the concept of "copyright" or "intelectual property". Patronage is one of them.
Re:What bunk! (Score:5, Informative)
Reproduction, copies of information, cannot be usefully sold as it lacks scarcity. That essentially puts it outside of the functional realm of property; any scarcity is purely artificial, and introducing artificial scarcity in an economy basically undermines and damages the economy as a whole. Creating artificial scarcity is more or less the economic equal of wholesale destruction of wealth and property.
We could put a huge glass bubble over a country, bottle all the air and force people to buy it. That would undoubtedly employ a lot of people, even increase the GDP, but for any sane definition of wealth, one would have to be truly warped to claim that would benefit the wealth of the society, or the economy, as a whole. And as an aside, in comparison with countries where the citizens were not forced to pay for bottled air, workers would cost more, with predictable effects...
You're right, of course, the propaganda blanket attempts to throughly confuse the issues. Artificial scarcity is unacceptable, and extra incentive systems must build on methods compatible with a free market. It's not like it's hard to do, there are any number of incentive systems that governments around the world use for various purposes. The monopoly systems of copyright and patents are grotesque abberations, not the common standard.
Re:What bunk! (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, there are other incentives. everything from rich sponsors to plan economy. Over time, we've found that the free market with working competition is the best solution for almost every form of good. There's competition in IP because there's money in IP (and yes, I mean
Re:What bunk! (Score:2)
I suspect that the answer to your question is quite apparent to you, but you're really looking to generate a theoretical debate about what form "information" must take to be considered infringing. We don't live in a digital world, we live in a practical world - think practically.
-h-
Re:What bunk! (Score:5, Insightful)
In both cases the thing being "shared" is information. The difference is that in the case of the book, the information is coupled with a physical object and thus causes the confusion in the form of some people's physical-world-coupled simian brains being unable to realize what it is they are sharing. Any "practical" measures to restrict sharing of information (which is what this is all about) will and must lead to totalitarian measures in regards to digital communication equipment i.e. computers and internet. It is not only "practical" but the only way.
Re:What bunk! (Score:3, Interesting)
They are both cases of "sharing" or "copying" (i.e. transmission of information). Our language simply does not deal well with the underlying proc
Re:What bunk! (Score:3, Insightful)
They have no legitimate wishes. The only reason copyright exists is because of a clause in the constitution that grants congress the power to create it expressly for the purpose of encouraging more stuff to be created. So, it's not there for the benefit of the creators at all, it's for the benefit of everybody else.
There is no 'natural' ownership right over your writing or music or software. The only right you naturally have is the right not to give it to anybody else.
Re:What bunk! (Score:3, Insightful)
RMS has made a cottage industry out of passing his opinions off as fact. He believes that copyright laws are unethical, therefore it is a fact that copyright laws are unethical.
Now maybe in a reality-free zone where everybody works for the common good and nobody takes more than his* fair share, that would be a reasonable thing to pass off as a fact. But Stallman's "facts" are impractial in the real world.
The guy is an idealogue. More power to him for practicing what he preaches, but hi
you, too (Score:5, Insightful)
Human beings have produced great art, science, and engineering for millennia in the absence of copyright protection. The assertion that copyrights and patents have any social or economic merit at all is at best unproven.
So, the ideologues trying to push unproven ideas on the rest of us are people like you, people who make strained arguments that somehow society needs to bear the costs and complexities of IP law.
Go prove your case before you whine about Stallman.
Re:you, too (Score:5, Insightful)
And you can see the result! People trading copies of the Sistine Chapel all over the streets of Milan! Bootleg recordings of the Brandenburg Concertos leaked far and wide before Bach's official release date!
(The reason we didn't need COPYRIGHT LAW for so long was that it was so damn hard to COPY THINGS. Duh.)
Re:you, too (Score:3, Informative)
Re:you, too (Score:4, Interesting)
Neither scientific advances nor engineering advances are protected by copyrights, so your argument is spurious.
And, in any case, we are talking about music here, not science or engineering. Having copyrights for the latest Britney Spears song is not going to advance science or engineering.
Those nations that have strong copyright and patent laws have developed far beyond those that make at most a token effort, while the latter commonly derive a significant part of their economic value from a black market in trading the former's work, rather than creating work of a similar calibre on their own.
There is a correlation, but you are getting cause and effect wrong. The US was infamous for ignoring copyright and patent laws during its best years. The US computer industry became strong before patents and mostly before copyrights on computer software became a factor.
So, economically successful nations have strong patent and copyright laws, but they have them because economically successful nations also have powerful industry lobbies that use patents and copyrights to exclude competition. And you only need to look at the UK to see what the long term consequences of that are.
Re:What bunk! (Score:4, Insightful)
Exactly. One of my major reasons for disliking RMS is that he has a very black-and-white "you're all with us or you're all against us" philosophy. Since he has problems with a few of the Creative Commons compatible licenses, they must all be rejected in his mindset. It's just so him. Of course, he naturally suggests that the GPL be used instead because it's his solution and thus it's correct for everything.
This is the same sort of uncompromising attitude that fuels religious conflicts everywhere. "If you're not just like me, then you're evil." RMS is a dogmatist. It doesn't matter if you think he's right in his stance, his arrogant, dismissive attitude is inexcusable.
Re:What bunk! (Score:5, Interesting)
But Stallman's "facts" are impractial in the real world.
Last time I checked, copyright goes completely against the laws of physics. It's a human construct designed to make bits uncopyable. In the words of Bruce Schneier [businessweek.com], it's akin to trying to make water not wet.
Now maybe in a reality-free zone where everybody works for the common good and nobody takes more than his* fair share, that would be a reasonable thing to pass off as a fact.
Well, no. What you do, as with free software, is accept -- indeed welcome -- the fact that bits can be copied. You then charge people for your time. Sure - you won't be the next Microsoft doing this. But the good old capitalist economy will be better off if the Microsoft tax on basic business goes away. There's no communism here. This is the free market at work. Without artificial monopolies.
Rich.
Re:What bunk! (Score:2)
Re:What bunk! (Score:4, Interesting)
One thing Stallman is not is a lazy thinker. In fact, I charge you with being a lazy thinker. You who are too lazy to see your way past the status quo. Who, in endorsing Lessig over Stallman seem to think a simple modification of the principles of copyright are enough to reconcile the creator's need for compensation with the internet's inherent zero-marginal cost nature.
You are wrong and Stallman is right. Jack Valenti unknowingly said it best -- "You can't compete with free." What Valenti did not understand, you do not understand and Stallman does understand is that basic axiom - if you can't beat them, join them.
One such method of "joining them" is a modern version of comissioned art. The internet makes it easy to share copies with a billion of your best friends, it also has the potential to easily aggregate funding from a billion "patrons."
Take the defunct TV show "Farscape" as an example. Production costs per episode were on the order of $2-3M each. If the production company is able to guarantee $3.3M in revenue per episode that means a ROI of at least 10% which is decent in the TV world were 90% of the shows aren't profitable until they reach syndication.
So, how could the production company have earned that kind of revenue? Without copyright. Yep, you read that right. Here's the details:
As a SWAG, lets say there was a fanbase of 10M worldwide. If just one third could be convinced to pony up $1 per episode - that's $3.3M right there. By using the internet and some sort of paypal like system (pay attention to what google is doing in this area, they seem to be thinking right along these lines) they could collect that $1 per episode and put it into an escrow account. When the balance reaches $3.3M production begins. When the episode is completed, it is released to the public domain and the money is released to the production company.
Such a system benefits all parties - the production company is guaranteed a profit before they invest a single dime, something completely unheard of in the world of entertainment business. In return for that guarantee, the end result is made freely available to one and all so that the people who funded the creation can share it with anyone they want without legal or moral issues. Ultimately the free distribution of previous episodes acts as advertising for future episodes.
Furthermore it is 100% free-market, no government intervention required, no dollars wasted on the FBI tracking down pirates because piracy is meaningless in such a system. And if the show sucks? People are only out a buck, not a big a loss and the chances of the next episode being funded goes down - it is survival of the fittest with no middlemen like advertisers and "programming execs" to muddle up the difference between good shows and crappy shows.
So - that's one idea demonstrating why copyright is indeed obsolete. How about you come up with one yourself instead of hiding behind the status quo?
Re:What bunk! (Score:5, Interesting)
Public domain means no copyright, which means all things are possible - even derivative works. If the development company does this for even one episode, then someone else - Spielberg, Warner, Fox, etc. - can take the Farscape line and produce their own episodes, or their own feature films.
Sure, to the public that paid for this one episode, that might be a benefit. But, for the production company, they have just lost all control over the future of one of their creative products, in return for a measly $300k.
I don't think any television or movie production company would go for such a deal. Now, if you allowed them to release under a creative commons license, such as one that allowed for free distribution but restricted derivative works, for-pay distribution, and public performances, then I bet you might find a company willing to take a shot at it. (And I'd be one person donating $1. Heck, make it $2 - I pay that for shows on iTunes anyway.)
Is that actually true? (Score:4, Insightful)
I posit that such a nightmare scenario is entirely illusionary, especially for franchises that are worth protecting.
are they different? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:are they different? (Score:5, Insightful)
It seems to me that this issue isn't really Creative Commons' fault and could be best handled by enforcing clarity. Stallman, who loves to enforce similar "clarity" about existing words which he has personally redefined to mean only what he says they do, certainly ought to get that. I imagine his hostility is really because their range of licenses includes things that are too restrictive for his taste.
Re:are they different? (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm a big fan of CC. I personally like the CC-BY license and use it for my own creations.
The Solution (Score:5, Funny)
Re:The Solution (Score:5, Funny)
Re:The Solution (Score:3, Funny)
Dude, you're been too much with your beloved Windows.
Shhhh, shhhh.... It'll be okay... (Score:3, Funny)
"As for the music factories--a.k.a. the major record companies--what they want is power. They will never accept P2P sharing as long as it remains a way to escape from their power. For their abuses against the people, they deserve to be abolished, and that should be everyone's goal. "
Hee-hee, he's so cute when he's going all nazi. Don't use the words "producers," "content," or "intellectual property." MP3s are evil. CDs with DRM aren't really CDs, they're "fake CDs" and they're "the face of the enemy." I swear, if he doesn't stop gritting his teeth at the universe he's gonna wear them down to the nub...
Re:Shhhh, shhhh.... It'll be okay... (Score:2)
RMS has long since lost his teeth... now he has a bloody mash of gums that have become infected by a strain of parasite-induced dementia, which causes him to label any form of content control as fundamentally oppressive to the human rights of freedom.
I recently overheard him stating that once his crusade against DRM is victorious, he's gonna bear his fleet of space warships against ARM (analog rights man
Is RMS relevant? (Score:4, Insightful)
I think it's time we just start ignoring RMS. Once the national media noticed him about 5-6 years ago, his ego has tipped the scales. He's so far off the deep end that I for one don't want to be associated with his ideas.
It's like we're all saying "Open source is a good thing", and he's now picking up that banner, saying "Unless it's completely open and completely free in every possible sense of the word, it's wrong". That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying "Open source is a good thing".
Re:Is RMS relevant? (Score:3, Insightful)
I think it's time we just start ignoring RMS.
Long past, if you ask me.
RMS has outlived his usefulness to the FOSS movement. He is, I might add, an obstacle, which can very easily make people move AWAY from FOSS.
RMS, we are all greateful for what you have done in the past, but please shut up.
Re:FSF software (Score:5, Informative)
His biography [oreilly.com] is pretty good. See also his Wikipedia entry [wikipedia.org].
Re:Is RMS relevant? (Score:2)
Please give an example of your 'Open Source' license.
Re:Is RMS relevant? (Score:4, Insightful)
Take a good look at the second word in that sentence. I. Why should you have the right to redistribute a work that someone else made? Here's an answer for you. You don't have, and shouldn't have unless the author explicitly gives you that right. You disagree. Fine I have every right to take your car out tonight. I mean who do you think you are locking your car up. Just because you worked hard to paint it, pay for it, or whatever, sure as hell deosn't give you the right to lock me out of it.
See this is the problem. OSS kicks ass. It kicks ass because we GIVE each other the right to use, modify, and redistribute the code. There is no God given right that allows you to lay claim to the works of others...nor should there be. If they give you that right cool, but remember they are not evil because they choose not to.
Re:Is RMS relevant? (Score:5, Insightful)
Conversely, there is no god given right to protect your works either. Copyright is an entirely legal (and fairly recent) construct.
Re:Is RMS relevant? (Score:3, Funny)
While that is true, methods besides copyright have been around for as long as humans. Its just that in todays society its frawned upon to just whack people over the head with a club if they take your shit.
Re:Is RMS relevant? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Is RMS relevant? (Score:5, Funny)
I sort of agree (Score:5, Interesting)
IMHO, if you're going to have some sort of umbrella for licenses to be put under, it should mean something. Near as I can tell, Creative Commons has no real criteria for deciding whether or not a license is acceptable.
If I read that a license is OSI approved, I know exactly what that means, and what sorts of things I can expect to be able to do and what I can expect to not be able to do.
If I hear that a license is a creative commons license, it tells me nothing. For all I know, it might be "You're allowed to distribute this only if you feel strongly that you have green skin.". They have license that discriminate based on what country you're a citizen of, so I don't see why they won't pick other weird things in the future.
If they want to be taken seriously, they will publish clear criteria for the acceptability of a license.
That's because RMS "gets it", Lessig doesn't (Score:5, Insightful)
During the 1850's there were all these groups that wanted to work out a friendly solution so that the slave states could get along with the free states. Rules to be nicer to slaves, shorter slave terms, more clearly defined boundaries, and so on and so on. Well they didn't get it, it was an all or nothing game. The very nature of the beast was coercive and restrictive in a way that could not survive the industrial revolution.
Well today, there are people who want a "compromise" with the copyright system. A shorter term here, a nicer enforcement there, more controll to the original author here, and so on and so on. What these people don't understand that the very nature of beast centers arround coercing how people can use and manipulate information at their disposal - the anti thesis of the information age. The only kind of copyright that can survive the information age, is one that can not be enforced.
Instead of crying about that, or clinging to old ways, what people need to do is learn how to make money from content services and not from content controll.
Re:That's because RMS "gets it", Lessig doesn't (Score:4, Insightful)
(For those who don't know, Brown was a abolitionist terrorist who tried to start a slave uprising in the south just prior to the Civil War. He and most of his followers were executed for their actions during the raid on the armory at Harper's Ferry. Lincoln, of course, was the 16th US President, and is now so well respected his image is engraved upon Mt Rushmore and the five dollar bill, and he has his own memorial in Washington, DC.)
I'd answer that, but my chains are too tight... (Score:3, Insightful)
and I can't type very well right now. I'll do my best, anyway. The Disney chain boss has left for five minutes, so I may have time to bang out a quick response.
Instead of crying about that, or clinging to old ways, what people need to do is learn how to make money from content services and not from content controll.
Nice idea. Let me know when your company goes public. In the mean time, ponder the notion that it takes a long time for human systems to change, and that usually an awful lot of experimenta
News Flash! (Score:5, Funny)
In other news, water is still wet, Microsoft is still a monopoly, and people dislike paying taxes.
My take? (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't get me wrong, the man did some great things in bringing forth the Free Software movement, but now it seems like his goal is to destroy everything that doesn't fit his ideals, and that's just as dangerous as what he opposes.
Re:My take? (Score:2)
Re:My take? (Score:3, Insightful)
I never would have guessed (Score:5, Funny)
You mean he's pushing his own ideas as better then someone elses? I'm shocked, SHOCKED!
Stallman slipping? (Score:3, Informative)
From reading the recent draft of the GPL v3 [slashdot.org], and the article attached to this story, I get a sense that he's slipped further. For instance, when he spoke at my university, he recognized that the best way to achieve your goals is to have limited, realistic goals, and focus on those. When people asked him about copyright on music or movies, he diplomatically dodged the question and said it was a separate issue from his Free Software philosophy, and he didn't want to address it. In the interview linked in TFA, he outright attacks copyright for these things. The GPL v3's attack on DRM is similar. Stallman has sacrificed the clarity and readibility of the GPL v2 in order to attack patents and DRM.
Now, maybe you agree with Stallman about copyright for music, etc. Even so, you should recognize that that puts you farther outside the mainstream, and it's much harder to change the mainstream when you're 1,000 miles away. If a bunch of Americans write letters to Congress demanding that copyright be abolished*, they will be ignored. If they ask that copyright law take a step back towards the original constitutional idea of limited (in time and power) protection to promote progress in science and the useful arts, that may actually get somewhere. It is vitally important that we sound reasonable.
Stallman has lost his sense of perspective and his grasp on reality. I think it's possible that he is now harmful to the Free Software movement, and the community needs to think about how to deal with this problem. If the community asked him to step down, would he?
* I know Stallman didn't outright call for the abolition of copyright. Still, the changes he wants (the freedom for anyone to distribute any published work) amount to nearly the same thing.
Re:Stallman slipping? (Score:3, Interesting)
So he's in a room with a bunch of mostly older computer engineers in the goverment sector. The first part of his speech goes alright, but then he starts driving off into crazytown. By the end of the speech, he's put on a robe and halo(!!!) and is talking abo
Re:Stallman slipping? (Score:4, Insightful)
If you wanted someone in a stuffed shirt that business people could relate to, you should have invited Bruce Perens instead.
Re:Stallman slipping? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Stallman slipping? (Score:3, Insightful)
Community: "Please Mr Stallman, stop being yourself."
In other words, step down from what? He does what he does because he is on a mission. People on a mission follow the mission, not the "community".
Re:Stallman slipping? (Score:3, Insightful)
The power of the GPL is completely predicated on the power of copyright. Without copyright, there can be no GPL. RMS's goal isn't to achieve "the freedom for anyone to distribute any published work," but rather to achieve a world in which published works are themselves free -- free to be built upon and creatively r
Re:Stallman slipping? (Score:4, Insightful)
Alternative Reality [What if... [Re:Stallman]] (Score:3, Informative)
Yea, and if you think about it, the only reason why he is like that is that Xerox refused to give the poor guy the sources for the driver of their laser printer when he wanted to fix a bug.
If Microsoft had known what would happen as a result, they might have acquired Xerox and given give him the source code, and RMS [ed.ac.uk] would have gone back to his cubicle.
Then we woul
Re:Stallman slipping? (Score:3, Insightful)
We should be finding ways to allow people MORE freedom (while still compensating software creators, artists and the like). Stallman's taken a draconian approach that actually means that there are less places you can us
Stallman's an idiot (Score:2, Interesting)
"the perfect being the enemy of the good"
He embodies it.
Re:Stallman's an idiot (Score:3, Informative)
Lessig is a jurist/lawyer with real-world/practicable ideas.
Dammit people (Score:3, Funny)
He just won't support the brand. (Score:5, Insightful)
Sounds fine to me. I've never been a big supporter of Creative Commons for much the same reason. All Creative Commons seems to be, to me, is a collection of license that someone has paid a lawyer to draft up and then donated that work to the public. You can pick and choose between the licenses and their clauses. It's a generous donation and it's very handy.
Then again, I've never seen how Creative Commons amounts to the "social movement" that people make it out to be. Stallman, whether you agree with him or not, seems devoutly intent on shaking up the foundations of the modern concept of intellectual property. By comparison, Creative Commons licenses seem like little more than tools for helping people navigate the status quo.
Re:He just won't support the brand. (Score:2)
CC as a brand includes some very non-free licenses toward what you can and cannot do with Creative Content. If you have a piece of content that is CC-BY-SA (Attribution/ShareAlike) licensed, you have a freedom that is truly free, maybe add an NC if you'd like to know who's doing what commercially with your content... but anything beyond that isn't really free.
I can see a reason for putting ND on some content, such as a speech, but it's still non-free. RMS wouldn't support no
Re:He just won't support the brand. (Score:5, Insightful)
No. Reread the article. If you use a Creative Commons license that might meet his standards, he still won't endorse it because the Creative Common "brand" allows licenses that he doesn't like. Instead, he thinks you should use his particular license (the GPL) for everything.
I'd respect him more (or have less disrespect for him) if he'd criticise the particular licenses he didn't like and give some praise for the ones he did like, but instead he says effectively, "Forget it. It's not worth the trouble. Use my license instead." Instead he takes the ideological "with us or against us" stance.
CC as social movement (Score:3, Insightful)
The fact that you've heard of CC at all shows that it's having some effect as a movement.
What the CC movement is ultimately about is showing people that there's more to protecting your work than simply slapping a big © symbol on it. What if you demand attribution, but don't care about duplication? Copyright is not a binary thing. CC firstly educates that there are different options for differ
Ignore him and he'll go away. (Score:2)
Seriously, folks. Why do we keep listening to him if it's obvious all he has to say is the same thing he's been saying for 20 some odd years, and no matter how much progress we make towards what were once his goals, he says "not good enough" and alienates more people.
Some are worth using (Score:5, Insightful)
Absolutely! The organization as a whole is trying to better society. I read many of Lawrence Lessig's articles and agree with just about everything he says. His goal is to provide options. A full range of options. Pick the ones that suit your needs and ignore the rest.
After all, isn't that what we do with our Linux systems? We pick the distro and packages we want and ignore the rest. If you don't like OpenOffice it doesn't mean you shouldn't use Linux! Just don't use the parts you don't like!
I don't think this concerns him. (Score:2, Interesting)
Creative Commons is for literature and other arts, way beyond his scope.
Besides, he said that he disagrees, not that he's going to do something about it, right? So, why should we worry about what he said?
Personal appearance? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Personal appearance? (Score:3, Funny)
My take is people can do what they want (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What an extremist (Score:3, Insightful)
"that is more libertarian than left-liberal."
Anyone who uses the term "left-liberal" makes themself look like an idiot. Linus is no Libertarian (Big-L - as in the neoliberals/anarcho-capitalists who pretend to be libertarians) and RMS is no "left-liberal" as you attempt to stereotype it.
Linus is a smart man and Stallman has gone off the deep end. Keep your political name calling out of it.
Smoke and Mirrors (Score:2)
GPLv3 probably won't be used in BusyBox. (Score:5, Interesting)
I tried to comment through their web page, but it doesn't work with Konqueror. I sent a comment via their email system, but it was bounced by their robot. (The subject text, "Concerns about gpl3 and busybox", doesn't appear in the GPL draft document, this has not been seen by a human nor will it ever be. Try jumping through the hoop again.)
It was about this time I decided I really don't care enough about placating Stallman. Sticking with v2 is just fine with me, and his opinion about creative commons is irrelevant as well. At this point, I consider Stallman irrelevant, and GPLv3 just another incompatible license fragmenting the open source userbase.
A pity, really...
Re:GPLv3 probably won't be used in BusyBox. (Score:3, Insightful)
-h-
Re:GPLv3 probably won't be used in BusyBox. (Score:4, Insightful)
1) The objection was reasonable
2) He tried to comment
3) He couldn't make his way past their filters.
I hope he is moderated up to 5 insightful/informative, so the drafters of the GPL3 may see it.
I don't know of ANY good way of constructing filters so that you can get all the messages you need to get without drowning in spam and other garbage. It's a real problem. But the reported attempt doesn't sound like a phenomenally acceptable filter.
Pope Stallman Rejects Another Herasy (Score:3, Insightful)
There are many times when "Screw you guys, I'm going home" is a valid response, but Stallman has done it so many times, about so many Open Source projects that don't adhere to Pope Stallman's ex cathedra Encyclical on The True and Only GPL that it's lost all meaning. Yeah, RMS, we've figured out nothing that you haven't personally blessed is pure and holy enough for you. Next question.
Perhaps his most impressive feat is making Eric Raymond look reasonable by comparison...
Crow T. Trollbot
GPL is not right for everything (Score:5, Insightful)
I love the Creative Commons. I think the Creative Commons is great as a whole, because some of its licenses are not unacceptable. In fact, I want Larry Lessig to have my baby. Wait that's not feasible.
(Changes in bold
What's right for software is not right for matters of opinion or fact. The distinction between sources and binaries don't matter here and actually confuse the right decisions. Nor is there any reason to believe that someone would get anything out of the ability to revise and extend anyone else's words. Okay, it might make sense for a collaborative manual, but I think there are many cases where the right leads to the trouble we're seeing with the clever editors of the Wikipedia.
Re:GPL is not right for everything (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course you can write that. What is your problem?
Re:GPL is not right for everything (Score:3, Informative)
I like the GPL and use it for software, but it's just not right for things like text. For instance, I can use my GPL-given right to revise and extend Richard Stallman's text to read:
And from the /. article summary: "He suggests instead using the GPL for creative works." RMS would never recommend that, there exists the GNU Free Documentation License [gnu.org] for documents, and this is most likely what RMS would recommend.
And in fact, actually reading the article gives you this RMS quote: "However, [the GPL's] r
Twisted Mentality (Score:2)
I wonder if he would agree with, "I no longer endorse Free Software. I cannot endorse Free Software as a shole, because some of its licenses are unacceptable."
Of course, he would never say that, because he would say, "well, any license I disagree with is by definition not Free Software". Well, if the issue is confusion as he claims, there are lots of licenses that people thin
Creative licensing should be a broad church (Score:3, Insightful)
Stallman and change (Score:2)
However, that is not to say that a fanatic who has had a clear and correct vision cannot later go over a cliff, and in the last year or so that does seem to me where RMS is headed.
sph
Sounds like... (Score:2)
Creative Commons Problems (Score:2, Insightful)
I agree completely with RMS. The Creative Commons licenses are not something that should be lumped together.
They also have several legal problems. Because there are 10 different possibilities for CC license combinations, it's difficult to determine whether all 10 are enforcable or not. The process for vetting even one license is hard enough, much less 10 distinct licenses.
The other is the "no commercial use" licenses. I think these would work fine f
I totally agree. (Score:2)
ShareAlike-1.0 worked, but now it's somewhat defunct. Flickr doesn't have it, for example. There's no current attribution-less license. They said that was due to lack of demand, based on lack of web-hits to their no-attrib licenses. What the fuck ever? They apparently have no interest in which licenses are most functional for encouraging a "creative commons". No
I no longer endorse RMS (Score:2)
Seriously this is crap this guy has gone a bit over the top on many things and doesnt seem to have any idea of balance. I think many things about CC is great and it has already help a lot of interesting works to be produced that otherwise could not hav
Egos are starting to show (Score:2)
Just whip them out on the table and get the ruler. Let's settle this once and for all and find out who's is longer.
Not helping the cause (Score:2, Funny)
Baby, Bathwater, Who Needs 'em? (Score:2)
Anyone who is surprised at such a dogmatic, hard line response from RMS hasn't been paying attention.
Bizarre Read. Nothing unexpected, really. (Score:3, Insightful)
What gets me is that RMS notes that people, in general, lump all of the CC licenses as one entity. He notes that they need to be addressed seperately.
Having said that, RMS is lucid in his responses. I think what gets peoples' goats about RMS is that he is basically unwavering and uncompromising when it comes to his ideals. This has and always will be the case.
My only wish from the article would have been RMS clarifying what portions of the CC Licensing system he considers to be acceptable and what parts he doesn't. Wholesale dismissal of the CC licenses is like getting a paper back with a big fat "F/0" and a note at the bottom saying "Do better next time", without any indication on the paper of what was wrong. (Bad experience with some college professors.
Why gets me is why people keep feeling surprised or shocked when RMS restates his ideals and views: free as in freedom, complete freedom, no restrictions. Yes, it's a hard left. Yes, it's idealistic. Yes, it would cripple companies and businesses that depend on the restriction of information-based goods(music, movies,etc).
But he does have a point. 100 years from now, how will we access DRM'd content that should have gone public domain? How will we read ebooks that can't be readliy converted to other formats? Same with encrypted and locked music, movies, etc?
Personally, he sounds alot like a cross between a hippie, priest, and lawyer, no offense meant to the hippie, priest, or lawyer. But just because he sounds like that, doesn't mean he isn't onto something. It's just not very palatable.
The man has a point (Score:4, Insightful)
But is he - in this instance - being irrational? Well, the creative commons typically used by Flickr, is simply a means of easily defining the rights you are providing. It can mean a number of things, and I think he has a point - that its confusing; you have to read the rights for every bit of work, rather than being able to trust that a creative commons mark means you have certain rights.
I still wouldn't use the GPL for writing or music because the GPL has clauses specifically aimed at software. There is no "source code" for music, and no obligation to distribute the score of the music along with the audio recordings for example. However, the creative commons is a diluted concept if you don't gauranttee certain rights to people, and they have to dig to see what their rights actually are.
Stallmans problem isn't one of intellect as such, but rather poor communication. He communicates in a uncomprimising and arrogant way; his way or the highway; and is unwilling to be part of a bigger team that he has no direct control over. That is why Open Source came about - we escaped the limits of Stallmans retoric.
Stallman still doesn't get Open Source I think - The Hurd being an example more of Cathedral style than Bazzar style development. Open Source has overtaken him for a reason, and that reason is a positive feedback cycle generated by a community of willing participants.
The big difference between open source and free software is the uncomprimising ideological dogma of Stallman. Free Software was about the Stallmans dictatorship; his word was law in that universe. Open Source on the other hand starts with the principles of Free Software, but does not insist the developers have the same ideological passions as Stallman.
That said, Open Source has not diluted the principle (as the Creative Commoms may have) by retaining a clear statement about what is and is not Open Source.
Changed my own attitude (Score:3, Insightful)
a) It makes me look like a fool, and
b) There is now absolutely no need for me to do it anyway. With the amount of crazed diatribes he's been releasing lately, he's doing a far better job himself of convincing everyone of what a generally undesirable human being he is than I ever could. His fame for his prior contributions has served as the rope, and over the past 2-3 years he's done an absolutely smashing job of using it to hang himself. He's now on the fast track to complete irrelevance.
How true the mathematical proverb is. Every problem does, indeed, have its own solution.
People are losing the point (Score:3, Informative)
The Creative Commons never wanted to be a free umbrella. Their goal is to create a standard for licenses. Artistic work used to have a big number of hard to understand licenses, so the CC people created a small set of them that is suitable to almost everybody, and made it available.
So RMS hit it exactly on the head. When you read that something is published on a CC license, you know nothing about your rights. But after you read the license name, you know exactly what it says (so all of you who put works under CC, please tell me the license name). That said, CC was very sucessfull on that, because its licenses cover almost all needs, from the most free work to the most resticted one. But FSF can not recomend you to use CC licenses on general, because, on general, they aren't free.
As usual, people bashing RMS don't know what they are talking about. As the interviewer: "There must be some basic misunderstanding here. If a work is released under the GPL, then the GPL's terms apply to it. How could it possibly be otherwise?". Great answer :).
RMS's position is harmful, for once! (Score:4, Interesting)
I haven't even read other comments yet as I'm writing this, but I'm sure that most other commenters would agree with the first part of that sentence, but rather fewer with the second.
Everybody knows that RMS's public posititions on Free Software tend to be uncompromising to say the least... and while I personally have often thought a more compromising position might be more productive especially in the short term, for his stated long-term goal of making
However, in this case I believe he is wrong. I order to achieve RMS's goals of ubiquitous Free software, one has to address the underlying economic assumptions made by society. The problem is that the dominant "neoclassical" view of economics is also very rigid and exclusive... it holds that its idealized "Free Market" is the best and only way to conduct economic congress, and Free Softare does not fit. This economic view is held by essentially all those in power or in control of the economic resources in our global civilization, and successfully sold to the mass of humans that compose this civilization.
What needs to happen before Free Software and many other urgently needed economic alternatives can fully succeed is that the noeclassical market's grip on the global economy needs to losen. For this to happen it is important to first show that viable alternatives exist, and can be to the benefit of our civilzation! That the rigid view of the Free Market is wrong and that we
The Creative Commons has done the remarkable job of helping all alternatives to succeed better without much more of a philosophical position than to say "alternatives are needed and exist". This is to the benefit of the whole spectrum of opinion and a detriment only to the dominant exclusivist one which needs to be toppled.
Yes, it does (very slightly) weaken the Free Software Movement's "GPL Brand", which derives some strength from it's position as the opposit extreme of the dominant one by labeling the all alternatives generically (all are "CC license with X provisions"). But this harm is minimal because the CC and the FSF operate in on different types of information, and aside from occasionally saying "just use the GPL", RMS has not really made any effort to address the clearly at least somewhat different needs of non-software media. In any case, any dilution of the FSF's position would come fairly and as part of a democratizing process.
So, surely RMS must admit that the overall benefit of the CC's well executed efforts massively outweighs any harm it does to his own cause.
: Jürgen Botz
RMS needs to get his head out of software (Score:4, Informative)
CC licenses are not meant for software.
A novel that is released under a CC NonCommercial or NonDeriv license might not meet the definition of Free Software, but who the fsck cares? It ain't *software*! Ditto for videos, music, websites, etc. Hell, not even his own GFDL documentatoin meets the Free Software definition!
Re:Let the creator decide (Score:3, Interesting)
Mr. Stallman has been ranting for 25 years. A long time. Pushing the GNU message.
He has predicted doom and gloom for 25 years.
The sorry and sad part? Even though the GNU GPL 2 has been widely accepted, the "doom and gloom" has come to pass. As predicted. DMCA, Copyright Extensions, DRM.
25 years of Stallman activism -- can you use a new XBOX for anything interesting? 25 years of Stallman activism -- you can be brought up on charges for taking apart a toner cartridge. 25 years of Stallman