Re: [Fsfe-uk] Re: ECF/ESF

[Chris Croughton]

On Sat, Oct 09, 2004 at 08:19:18PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:

> On 2004-10-05 13:40:10 +0100 Chris Croughton <address@hidden> 
> wrote:
> 
> >To most of the people I talk to about computers, excepting the
> >already-converted GNU/Linux/etc. geeks, "free software" and "free 
> >media"
> >mean free as in "free beer" and nothing else. [...]
> 
> I wonder what those people think "free enterprise" and "free society" 
> mean?

You snipped the part where I talked about context -- free society and
free enterprise apply to people, not to objects.  If a girl says "I'm
free tonight" it is normally assumed that she is not talking about how
much she charges per night.  However, if a sign says "the food is free
tonight?" it is assumed that it means cost.

Software is generally regarded as an object, not as a person.

> >On the other hand, "open source" and "open media standards" are
> >something they can understand.
> 
> Have you ever met any normal person who can remember accurately all 
> points of the "Open Source Definition" at first attempt?

I can't even remember all of the FSF's points of free software.

> At best, they 
> come away with some fuzzy ideas of programmer liberalism which the 
> next marketer can then mould into their Shared Source or whatever.

And with "free software", the main point to most people is that they
don't have to pay anything.

> Both "open source" and "free software" need explanation. I prefer 
> "free software" because the "...use ...adapt ...redistribute 
> ...release your improvements..." definition is complete yet short.

Except that the only thing the vast majority of people care about is the
'use' part ('redistribute' as well, but they don't want to have to
distribute the source as well).

> And "open media standards": I think last time it was discussed here, 
> "open formats" and "open information" were the consensual terms.

I don't remember seeing a concensus.  Open information sounds a bit like
the Freedom of Information Act (a good thing in itself, IMO, but not I
suspect what you mean by the term).  I've certainly seen the term "open
standards" used, most people aren't particularly affected by anything
apart from media standards, though (where they do know the problems
caused by having to get lots of different software or hardware to read
different files).

> Work under some FSF documentation licences is not free software. To be 
> fair, FSF doesn't claim it is. If you take the FSF line that its 
> documentation is not software (which I disagree with), that would 
> still mean it can't go in Debian at present.

Indeed.  The end result, though, is that a user who just wants to use
the distribution finds that things are missing.

> >At least some
> >of what is on that web page seems to me (a non-lawyer) as silly
> >nitpicking, in particular claiming that the anti-DRM clause means that
> >it can't be distributed at all privately [...]
> 
> That's one position that enough people hold to stop consensus building 
> far. Debian usually needs consensus before deciding that something is 
> free software.

And concensus is, in general, a Good Thing(tm) to have.  There is a
point, however, where lack of concensus means that nothing ever gets
done, or it doesn't get done in a reasonable time, and after that it is
no longer relevant because the users have all gone elsewhere.

> Also, I don't remember any of the lawyers or law students in 
> debian-legal objecting to that claim yet (and yes, there are some as 
> well as the laymen) - it may be that it's simply unclear and we're 
> still unsure. Lack of clarity in DRM clauses has been fairly common, 
> probably because they are new and little-established so far.

I suspect that no lawyers would want to put their opinions on the line
in that way (if they said "it's OK" when it isn't they would be in a lot
more trouble than saying "it's not OK" when it is OK).

> >It's that sort of nitpicking which puts a lot of people off the "free
> >software" community. [...]
> 
> It's that sort of nitpicking which puts a lot of people off any 
> law-based work.

True.

> Sadly, copyright is not easy to escape. You can always 
> ignore copyright law, but copyright law won't always ignore you, as 
> the recording industry are showing when they go after filesharers.

That's big business throwing their weight around, when the little people
can't afford to pay big enough lawyers to fight it.  It's the old "we
have plenty of money for long lawsuits, and have influence on the
government, we can outgun and outlast you".  I don't see individual
songwriters trying to pull that sort of thing.  It wouldn't even matter
if the copyright law didn't back them up, they could still issue the
suits knowing that the victims can't last long enough (or, as in the SCO
case, they can be intimidated into paying with only the threat of a
lawsuit).

Chris C