On 12/02/16 12:24 PM, Tobias Platen wrote: > > > On 02/12/2016 06:04 PM, Blaise Alleyne wrote: >> On 11/02/16 11:05 AM, Joshua Gay wrote: >>> On 02/11/2016 07:29 AM, Daniel Pocock wrote: >>>> People may actively work on something (e.g. a paper or some slides) to >>>> promote a particular point of view (e.g. Free Software) >>>> >>>> Somebody else may take 90% of the slides and just change 10% of them and >>>> start using them to promote a similar point of view (e.g. Open Source) >>>> >>>> Is the FSF using nonfree licenses as a tactic to prevent that? >>> >>> In some cases, yes, I believe this the purpose of us choosing a license >>> that restricts redistribution of modified versions. >>> >>> For example, the GNU GPL is a work that contains sections that express a >>> point of view (e.g., the preamble) as well as sections that are >>> functional in nature (e.g., the terms and conditions). The GNU GPL is >>> published under terms that restrict modification of the work as a whole, >>> but we publish an exception stating under what conditions people are >>> allowed to modify and distribute portions of the work and which parts >>> must be removed if you wish to distribute a modified version. The GNU >>> GPL is in a sense much like a computer game in that it also combines >>> creative works with works that are functional in nature. >>> >>> Personally I am strong advocate for the proliferation of free cultural >>> works. However, I'm not as convinced that it is an injustice to the >>> world that the GNU GPL is not a free cultural work. If I found it to be >>> unethically licensed, then I would most certinaly boycott its use and I >>> would not work for the FSF as an employee. But I don't find the terms >>> and conditions of the GNU GPL or other licenses the FSF holds copyright >>> on to be unethically licensed. There are other works published by the >>> FSF blur the line of being functional and in expressing a point of view. >>> In some cases it is hard for me to see why licensing those works under a >>> free license would be problematic, but in other situations I'm less >>> confident that it is necessary or even good to distribute those works >>> under a free license. >>> >>> I simply can not arrive at the same clear cut conclusion that the four >>> freedoms in the free software definition should be applied to all >>> creative works/works that express an opinion. As such I do not condemn >>> the FSF as unethical and I don't believe that they are committing a >>> harmful wrongdoing to the world and to others by using nonfree license, >>> even though I hold strongly to the point of view that the distribution >>> of proprietary software is a harmful wrongdoing. >>> >>> Out of curiousity, for those that do strongly believe all works should >>> be freely licensed, do you believe that GNU GPL, is therefore itself a >>> work that is an injustice to those who recieve it and that it should be >>> condemned and avoided? >>> >> >> I think there could be benefit if the GNU GPL were itself freely licensed. >> >> I don't think copyright is an appropriate or effective tool for reaching the >> objectives you describe above. >> >> Trademark on the other hand, would be, i.e. if someone makes a "restricted >> modification", they should no longer be able to refer to it as the GNU GPL. >> (That's not restricting people's freedom to fork the license, but avoiding >> confusion if changes are made.) >> >> > > Copyleft requires that the exact license text is passed to all readers and > users. One can still modify the GPL, but that modified licence needs a > different > name, as it is not the original work. [...]
Totally agree. If the licenses is modified, it's no longer "the GNU GPL." Point is, you don't need proprietary licensing of the text of the GNU GPL to accomplish this.
