On 20-Jan-2008, Alex Hudson wrote: > On Sun, 2008-01-20 at 21:54 +1100, Ben Finney wrote: > > It's a fact that bit-collections can be simultaneously "program", > > "documentation", "art", and "documentation". Therefore it's a > > fallacy to name those categories and expect that bit-collections > > will fall into exactly one of them. > > I didn't say it would fall into exactly one of them; I disagree with > the notion that they can't be separated.
Making a policy that requires different freedoms depending on the different functions of a work is requiring that they *always* be separated. If they *can* be combined in the same work, the policy is no longer robust. Better to define a policy that requires the same freedoms *regardless* the function of the work. > As an obvious example, you don't know what legal rights the author > has to that binary, and if the license doesn't offer permissions to > those rights then it's clearly non-free. How would knowing the function ever guarantee that I know the rights the *author* has in the work? It might clarify some issues, but if you're suggesting I could know with certainty the *absence* of obligation on the copyright holder, that's not possible. It's also irrelevant. As a recipient of the work, I must take the work and its license terms as given, and judge the freedom of the work based on what rights the *recipient* has in the work. > > The function of the work doesn't need to come into consideration > > at all. I argue that if it *does* come into consideration, then > > you are making freedom of the work contingent on what the > > recipient intends to do with the work, and that by definition > > isn't free. > > And I would argue it's an immediately practical concern since much of > what defines a given work as being free is the license applied to > it. Yes, exactly. We seem to be in agreement on this point. The license terms on a work are a major factor in determining the freedom of the work for recipients of that work. > The law talks in terms of function, not form, and thus the freeness > is based on function, not form. That's a non-sequitur. The law can impose restrictions; it's up to us to define what freedoms we require. The free software definition, and the free culture definition, both do a fine job of defining free software with a requirement that function *not* be a factor. -- \ "I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the | `\ death your right to mis-attribute this quote to Voltaire." -- | _o__) Avram Grumer, rec.arts.sf.written, May 2000 | Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list [email protected] https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
