On Sat, 2003-06-14 at 06:15, Branden Robinson wrote: > On Fri, Jun 13, 2003 at 09:15:26AM -0400, Jeremy Hankins wrote: > > Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > I personally have advocated a fifth freedom: > > > > > > 5) The freedom to retain privacy in one's person, effects, and data, > > > including, but not limited to, all Works in one's possession and > > > one's own changes to Works written by others. > > > > I think (though I'm not sure) that I agree with what you're trying to > > do, but I don't like using privacy as its basis[1]. Reasonable people > > can disagree, of course, but I think it's important to understand that > > privacy and the free flow of information are competing values, and the > > optimum is some point between either extreme that maximizes other > > social values. > > I don't find your observation objectionable; I have been wrestling with > a sound philosophical basis for my "instinctive" feelings on this > subject. > > As long as the goal is met, I'm not particularly enamored of grounding > freedom 5 on the concept of privacy. It probably shouldn't be grounded > explicitly on *any* political principle, since people can have differing > value systems, yet agree on this particular point.
Branden, perhaps the term "information disclosure" would better suit you/us than "privacy"? That is we propose a DFSG-free licence cannot mandate information disclosure of anything but the information forming a distributed and derived work. I agree with Jeremy that I don't like using the idea of privacy as a basis for the freedom. Not accepting licences that require mandatory information disclosure seems much more concrete and exactly encompass the consequences you set out in your initial post. Regards, Adam
