FSF is creating a problem that never existed! [LWN.net]

Freedom over convenience

Posted Oct 3, 2006 9:55 UTC (Tue) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link]

You don't have to interpret Stallman's sayings; you have a lot of his own exegesis online. He just asks you to value convenience over freedom, and freedom is a well defined set of conditions. The guy is not asking you to give your life for the revolution, just to give up OpenGL with certain cards, or wait a little. I don't think those conditions are too extreme. I live according to his precepts and have been happy ever after! (Just joking :)

Both GPLv2 and v3 are about freedom; times change and licenses must be updated to reflect the new conditions and close any loopholes.

Freedom over convenience

Posted Oct 3, 2006 21:58 UTC (Tue) by sepreece (subscriber, #19270) [Link]

I suspect that was supposed to be "to not value convenience over freedom".

I would note, though, that "content vs freedom" is a different equation than "convenience vs freedom". A lot of content is simply not available (legally) without DRM. And that's because the content owners are exercising their right to control the circumstances under which they release their content, just as GPL authors control the circumstance under which they release theirs.

Stallman, of course, says "movies are generally no good - you're better off without them" and "if you really want movies, go find copies that people are sharing in violation of their licenses." [those are paraphrases, but definitely in the spirit of the actual quotes]

Freedom over convenience

Posted Oct 4, 2006 10:10 UTC (Wed) by stijn (subscriber, #570) [Link]

When exercising their rights the content owners are using a big club and overwielding it to the extent that 1) you loose the rights or the power to exercise rights you had before (think fair use, time/space shifting). 2) the means they use encroach in other technological areas as well.

Increasingly ridiculous EULAs will be substituted by and implemented with DRM. Information or content if you will will be licensed under EULA type restrictions.

I am not sure I disagree with anything you say, but somehow I have trouble grasping the symmetry between DRM-licensed content and GPL-licensed code, looking at it from the perspective of nourishing creativity and progress - rip and mix.

Freedom over convenience

Posted Oct 4, 2006 14:49 UTC (Wed) by sepreece (subscriber, #19270) [Link]

The symmetry is pretty straightforward. The GPL says "you may redistribute so long as you meet these conditions." Movie and music producers say to their distributors "you may redistribute our content so long as you meet these conditions".

I'm certainly not saying that the content owners are nourishing creativity and progress by restricting their content, just that what they are doing appears to be within the rights granted them by copyright. For that matter, I have reservations about the GPL on the same point.

As to fair use, it's a very slippery concept. There's never been a hard definition that allows you to know exactly what use is fair use. In any case, fair use limits the owner's ability to sue you for certain uses of hte material, it doesn't require that the content owner make it easy to make fair use of the material.

For instance, a reporter clearly has a right to quote from a public speech, but there is no requirement that the speaker provide even a written transcript, let alone an electronic transcript or recording. Similarly, the fair-use right to quote from a movie for a review doesn't require that the owners provide clips, either on request or by capture from a playback device; it just means you're not infringing if you use clips in a review [note,however, that if you got those clips by circumventing DRM, as opposed to by videotaping a playback, you may still be violating the DMCA].