Posted by David Post:
More on Free Software and Copyright:
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_03_29-2009_04_04.shtml#1238605755
As a follow-on to the discussion here about Richard Stallman's recent
talk about reforming copyright law, and [1]his objections to my use of
the terms "free software" and "open source software" interchangeably,
Stallman sent me the following message (which I reproduce here with
his permission, and indeed at his request):
"I see you posted part of my message. Could you please post all of
it? If you post just part, readers are likely to conclude that I
had no other criticism and agreed with everything else."
Although I am not at all sure I agree that readers would be "likely to
conclude" that he had no other criticism of my original posting, I'm
posting the other parts of his message below. He continues:
"Did you change "open source" to "free software" in the original
posting?"
That's an interesting one. Here's what I wrote back to him in
response:
"No, I did not. I have several reasons for not doing so. First, I
said what I said, and I'm uncomfortable (as a general rule) with
going back and re-writing the history of the discussion -- among
other things, the ensuing comments about the use of the terms "free
software" and "open source software" would be incomprehensible to a
reader if I changed the original posting that way. More
significantly, I'm uncomfortable with the notion that you get to
decide what the terms mean for others. I didn't use the terms
incorrectly - I used them in a manner you disagree with. I've given
you the opportunity to explain to my readers your disagreement, and
they will decide for themselves whether they agree or not with your
position. My job is to communicate with them as best I can, using
the lexicon so as to make whatever point(s) I'm trying to make, and
I don't think changing the original posting is the right move in
that direction."
***************
Stallman's original message to me in regard to [2]my original posting:
I am disappointed that you describe my work as "open source", because
I disagree with that camp and I constantly struggle against the
misinformation which labels my work that way. You might as well call
my work "Republican". For instance, this sentence
"Stallman understands this thoroughly � though the vast majority of
commentators on the open source movement have missed this point."
is likely to lead readers to suppose erroneously that I am a supporter
of the open source movement, when in fact I disagree with it
fundamentally.
See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html
for an explanation of this disagreement.
Would you please replace "open source" with "free software" in this
posting about my work?
". . . he has concluded that copyright law is broken, in
fundamental ways, that it no longer functions to encourage the
production of creative works, but in fact has quite the opposite
effect, serving primarily to stifle creative activity."
But I did not say that. That is not what I think, and I don't say it
either. This is because I reject the more basic supposition that
encouraging the production of works is the sole or principal goal. I
do support that goal, but I think it is less important than another
desideratum: to respect the public's important freedoms to use
published works.
I am willing to trade freedom for the benefit of encouraging
production of works only when it is a matter of an inessential freedom
(which, in the age of the printing press, it generally was).
I suspect that his ultimate aim is not merely to substantially
weaken copyright (as in his proposal) but to eliminate it entirely,
I do not wish to abolish copyright; if I did, I would say so. I often
speak with people who advocate abolishing copyright, and I tell them
that I do not agree.
I remain am willing to trade inessential freedoms to encourage
production of works, and there are freedoms which I think are still
inessential and fit to be traded in this way. The proposal in my
speech is based on that. It reduces copyright power by restoring to
readers the essential freedoms, but it continues the copyright bargain
in regard to other freedoms which are substantial in economic
importance but not essential in my view.
References
1. http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_03_29-2009_04_04.shtml#1238473610
2. http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_03_22-2009_03_28.shtml#1238164855
_______________________________________________
Volokh mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.powerblogs.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/volokh
