I do not trust Software Freedom Conservancy (and with good reasons), but I agree with most of what is written here, except:
Copyright and other legal systems give authors the power to decide what license to choose […]
In my view, it’s a power which you don’t deserve — that allows you to restrict others.
As an author of free software myself, I think that I totally deserve the right to decide who and how can use my work.
I read the article you linked to but didn’t really understand how that means SFC can’t be trusted. Because a project under their umbrella git rebased a repo?
I cannot trust them anymore, because when the project joined Conservancy, I explicitly asked them how my copyright was going to change and Karen Sandler replied that it was not going to change.
One year later I discovered that my name was completely removed by the sources.
According to the GPLv2 this violation causes a definitive termination of the project’s rights to use or modify the software.
Now, I informed Sandler about that mess (before the rebase) and never listen her back after, despite several of my contributions got “accidentally squashed” during the rebase.
That’s why I cannot trust them anymore.
Because they are still supporting a project that purposedly violated the GPLv2 (causing its definitive termination) and despite the fact that I gave them the possibility to fix this, they didn’t… and tried to remove all evidences of this violation and of the license termination with a rebase… (that still squashed some of my commits).
He’s objecting to restricting others in the way that proprietary software does, that’s the right he says you shouldn’t have. I think you edited out the part in your quote what bkuhn was talking about.
But more to your point, I also think that your right to to decide how others can use your work should be very limited. With software, an unlimited number of people can benefit from using your work in ways you may disagree with while you would be the only who would object. As a bargain with society, your authorial rights should be given smaller weight than the rights of your users.
As a bargain with society, your authorial rights should be given smaller weight than the rights of your users.
Is this a principle that you believe should be only applied to software?
Because if not, one could argue that a person’s special skills (say, as a doctor) are so valuable to society that that person should work for free to assure that the greatest number of people have access to their skill.
If the principle is restricted to expression, a photograph I take of a person could be freely used by a political party that I despise to further their cause through propaganda. I am only one person, and they are many. My pretty picture can help them more than it helps me. So according to the principle above (as I read it) they should have unrestricted access to my work.
I believe that the current regime of IP legislation is weighted too much towards copyright holders, but to argue that a creator should have no rights to decide how their work is used is going too far.
Software is different than doctors because software can be reproduced indefinitely without inconveniencing the author. Photographs are more similar to software than doctors.
I also didn’t say an author should have no rights. I just said their rights should weigh less. For example, copyrights should expire after, say, 10 years, instead of lasting forever as they de facto do now.
I do not trust Software Freedom Conservancy (and with good reasons), but I agree with most of what is written here, except:
As an author of free software myself, I think that I totally deserve the right to decide who and how can use my work.
I read the article you linked to but didn’t really understand how that means SFC can’t be trusted. Because a project under their umbrella git rebased a repo?
No.
I cannot trust them anymore, because when the project joined Conservancy, I explicitly asked them how my copyright was going to change and Karen Sandler replied that it was not going to change.
One year later I discovered that my name was completely removed by the sources.
According to the GPLv2 this violation causes a definitive termination of the project’s rights to use or modify the software.
Now, I informed Sandler about that mess (before the rebase) and never listen her back after, despite several of my contributions got “accidentally squashed” during the rebase.
That’s why I cannot trust them anymore.
Because they are still supporting a project that purposedly violated the GPLv2 (causing its definitive termination) and despite the fact that I gave them the possibility to fix this, they didn’t… and tried to remove all evidences of this violation and of the license termination with a rebase… (that still squashed some of my commits).
He’s objecting to restricting others in the way that proprietary software does, that’s the right he says you shouldn’t have. I think you edited out the part in your quote what bkuhn was talking about.
But more to your point, I also think that your right to to decide how others can use your work should be very limited. With software, an unlimited number of people can benefit from using your work in ways you may disagree with while you would be the only who would object. As a bargain with society, your authorial rights should be given smaller weight than the rights of your users.
Is this a principle that you believe should be only applied to software?
Because if not, one could argue that a person’s special skills (say, as a doctor) are so valuable to society that that person should work for free to assure that the greatest number of people have access to their skill.
If the principle is restricted to expression, a photograph I take of a person could be freely used by a political party that I despise to further their cause through propaganda. I am only one person, and they are many. My pretty picture can help them more than it helps me. So according to the principle above (as I read it) they should have unrestricted access to my work.
I believe that the current regime of IP legislation is weighted too much towards copyright holders, but to argue that a creator should have no rights to decide how their work is used is going too far.
Software is different than doctors because software can be reproduced indefinitely without inconveniencing the author. Photographs are more similar to software than doctors.
I also didn’t say an author should have no rights. I just said their rights should weigh less. For example, copyrights should expire after, say, 10 years, instead of lasting forever as they de facto do now.
Thanks for clarifying your position in this matter.
I think we are broadly in agreement, especially with regards to the pernicious effects of “infinite copyright”.
It’s funny that I’m taking the parts of copyright here…
Let’s put it this way: if I invented a clean energy source I would do my best to ensure it was not turned to a weapon.
Same with software.
It’s my work, thus my responsibility.