On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 2:12 PM, Ben Finney < ben+freesoftw...@benfinney.id.au> wrote:
> Adrian Colomitchi <acolomit...@gmail.com> > writes: > > > On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 11:30 AM, Ben Finney < > ben+freesoftw...@benfinney.id.au> wrote: > > > From that it follows that it's unjust to deny the freedoms that accrue > > > for functional use of a work, merely because the copyright holder > > > doesn't think it has functional use. > > > > > My argument is: "since one cannot make a clear distinction between <it's > a > > program> or <it's just data>", then "what the computer does to > > render/obtain the desired result" should NOT be a criterion in judging > the > > copyrights (or, for the matter at hand, copylefts - still based on > > copyright laws), or at the very least *should not be the sole or even the > > main criterion in balancing the rights of the copyright holder and the > > rights of the consumer*. > > This quote from Eben Moglen is relevant: > > “We can't depend for the long run on distinguishing one bitstream > from another in order to figure out which rules apply.” —Eben > Moglen, _Anarchism Triumphant_, 1999 > > I'm arguing, and it appears you agree, that we can't depend on some > fixed decision about which purposes are valid for a bitstream in order > to determine which freedoms apply indefinitely for future recipients of > it. > Yes, I agree. But... as with any "negative proof/theorem", it only says: "It's impossible to use X to guarantee Y". It is not a proof for "But there exists another Z - be it simple or not - that will guarantee Y". Just to make my point clear, I have some subsequent assertions (one may call it "conjectures" to go along with math terminology, I'm not offering a demonstration for them): 1. there is a distinction between documentation and application software, even if the distinction is not located in the "bitstreams". Consequence: I cannot agree with the assertion of "one can treat documentation the same way as one can treat application (source) code; therefore, why does one need FDL when GPL is already there?" 2. due to the dynamic nature of the "copyright vs consumer rights balancing act", there exists no* **fixed/static set of rules* one can use to say: "For any software documentation A, the use GNU FDL hurts the society by denying the maximal freedom of consumers over A" - for some A's FDL will be better, for other A's will be worse. In other words, I see the assertion of "FDL is not as free for documentation as GPL is for application software" as irrelevant - there's already enough freedom inside FDL to make it a solution, even if there's no optimum to reach in in all and every cases. 3. there is *no critical need for a **clear cut, fixed/static set* *of rules * to guarantee the freedom of software documentation (in general, and much less for the one released under FDL); the current set of restrictions is sufficiently lax to always allow *affordable workarounds* around any particular cases (that is: I find the current copyright legislation as *fair enough* for software documentation - with the notable exception of DMCA-like laws, which have limited applicability to documentation anyway). In other words, I can't see a strong reason to search for an "*unified* *free license for everything*" (as a parallel to the "unified theory of everything") that guarantees, under the *same terms*, equal liberties/freedom for documentation and application software alike. Adrian _______________________________________________ Free-software-melb mailing list Free-software-melb@lists.softwarefreedom.com.au http://lists.softwarefreedom.com.au/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/free-software-melb Free Software Melbourne home page: http://www.freesoftware.asn.au/melb/
