Re: [hackers-il] Re: Your old articles
- Hi Nadav,
On Sunday 17 Apr 2011 16:42:48 Nadav Har'El wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 17, 2011, Shlomi Fish wrote about "[hackers-il] Re: Your old
> > On Monday 04 Apr 2011 08:37:43 Richard Stallman wrote:
> > > You already declined to make the two promises that I always request
> > > for an interview, so I said no.
> > Well, will you be able to share what these two promises that you request
> > are, just for the record? Furthermore, if you are not going to give me
> > an
> Shlomi, if you want someone to do you a favor (answer your questions), why
> do you try so hard to alienate him? Why CC your discussion to a public
> mailing list? No, the line "I hope it's OK, as I don't see why this
> message should not be made public" doesn't make it any nicer to publish
> someone else's mail.
Well, RMS CCed his messages to Hackers-IL as well, and my point in doing that
is to have a record of our correspondence and his opinion.
> About his "requests", I have no idea what he's referring to, as I didn't
> see all your correspondence, but I have a good guess: He's probably annoyed
> that you use the terms "Linux" instead of "GNU/Linux", and "Open Source"
> instead of "Free Software".
I have only used them in essays and blog posts I've written, which were not
intended for him in particular. During my recent correspondence with him, I
made sure to only use the FSF-blessed terminology with him. What I've written
on my home site and weblogs elsewhere for public consumption should be none of
> If you don't understand why his requests are justified, let me give you an
> example: Imagine that some journalist from Al-Jazeerah (for example) comes
> to interview Netanyahu, and his first question is something about the
> "Zionist Occupation Army". It doesn't matter that this (jeish alichtilal
> assayuni) is the term they use for our army - Netanyahu would object to
> this term, and terminate the interview immediately. If the journalist
> wants to get an answer out of him, he should try to use more neutral terms
> which his interviewee would not find offensive - like, perhaps, "Israeli
> Like that hypothetical Al-Jazeerah journalist, you are free to use your
> favorite terms in other places - just don't use them when contacting people
> who are offended by the terms you prefer.
I did exactly that. :-)
> > 1. I know you believe that non-free, public, software (which Joel Spolsky
> > calls "shrinkwrap" software here -
> > http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/FiveWorlds.html ) that is not free
> > or even not entirely free, is illegitimate and immoral. However, do you
> > believe that in an ideal world, such software should be illegal?
> The word "illegal" in this case could have two meanings. The first (which
> I doubt RMS would agree with) is that people who try to sell Shrink-Wrapped
> software should be put in jail. The second - which I'd guess RMS would
> prefer - is shrink-wrap will not be against the law, but simply unsupported
> by the law: That the law will give makers of software and hardware less
> "teeth" to bully clients with - no DMCA, unenforcable "shrink wrap
> licenses" and so on.
Well, I'm trying to get to Dr. Stallman's opinion of the matter, not what
other people have interepreted that.
> > 2. Do you believe that one can prevent commercial use and commercial
> > redistribution (i.e: mass selling for a profit) of their otherwise
> > publicly available artwork? (Similar to the -nc variants of the Creative
> > Commons licences.)
> Why are you asking RMS this?
> And are you asking this legally (will the -nc license "stick" in court) or
> morally (is it a good idea)?
The "can" was indeed a misphrasing on my part (it should be a "should").
Naturally, I know "not-for-commercial-use" licences are enforcable in court,
but I was asking him if he thinks they are ethical.
> > 3. Do you believe that one can completely prevent derivative works of
> > one's otherwise public artwork? (Similar to the -nd variants of the
> > Creative Commons licences.).
> Again, why are you asking RMS about CC licenses? And are you asking
> legally or philosophically?
I'm trying to see if he approves of them. Some people say he approves of such
non-free (but still possibly not 100% restricted) cultural works outside the
realm of software. Other people claim that he thinks all cultural works (or
possibly "content") should abide by the same guidelines of the Free Software
Definition ( http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html ).
As a result, I'm trying to get to the bottom of his opinion.
> Clearly, RMS thinks it's *wrong* to prevent derivative works.
In software perhaps, or in its documentation, but what about in essays, or
images, or audio files, or video files, or animations or fictional stories or
I should note that here:
"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?
Since then, after the Creative Commons retracted
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/devnations/2.0/ , I recall seeing
something that he said he supports them again and now CC-by and CC-by-sa are
> The GPL and
> GFDL are all about allowing derivative works.
Yes, because that is their spirit. However, that does not mean that he
believes that it is not acceptable to release one's work under a more
restrictive licence, that does not allow derivative works. Even the text of
the GPL can not be changed or misused because allowing people to change it
will cause anarchy as many different licences claiming to be "The GNU General
> But there's an interesting
> exception - the GFDL has the option of "invariant sections" - sections
> which cannot be modified. It seems that RMS finds a slightly lesser value
> in allowing modifications to text (and perhaps other forms of artistic
> expression) than he finds in modification of software (which has a
> functional value, it's not just a piece of art).
Agreed. My question is how he feels about people using CC licences with -nd
and/or -nc for their own non-software needs.
BTW, here is an amusing link:
Shlomi Fish http://www.shlomifish.org/
"Humanity" - Parody of Modern Life - http://shlom.in/humanity
Chuck Norris refactors 10 million lines of Perl code before lunch.
Please reply to list if it's a mailing list post - http://shlom.in/reply .