Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Copyfree

[Fabio Pesari]

On 02/25/2016 05:00 PM, Aaron Wolf wrote:
>
> Oh that's absolutely correct, but *we* aren't Copyfree. We're AGPLv3+. I
> am a strong copyleft advocate myself.

I know, but you are associating with them. I don't like the OSI, but at
least free software and open source are largely compatible in terms of
licenses, Copyfree isn't.

> The point is that we acknowledge the position of the Copyfree folks.
> They are not the proprietary people wanting to restrict things, they are
> the hardcore anti-copyright people who reject the whole nature of
> government-granted monopolies. They are anti-proprietary *and*
> anti-copyleft out of principle.

If they only accepted works in the public domain, I would agree with
you. That would not be unreasonable, it would be consistent.

But they explicitly _reject_ copyleft and anti-DRM licenses, while
accepting _licenses_ which benefit proprietaries. That's not the same thing.

They also don't mention copyright abolition anywhere in their homepage,
but they make some claims about Copyfree making my life "easier". How?

> Again, *I* am a copyleft supporter myself. But I acknowledge that there
> *exists* this principled Copyfree approach that wants to avoid all forms
> of legal encumberance and legal incompatibilities, and I acknowledge
> that view is different than the far-too-common version of anti-copyleft
> which basically is pro-proprietary.

I know you are a copyleft supporter, and respect you for choosing
copyleft, but I don't see why the Copyfree "people" (are the more than
one?) _should_ be acknowledged.

Everybody ignored them so far - I had never heard about them and I've
been using free software for more than a decade - why give them the
attention they don't deserve?

> For reference, the Copyfree guy is not actually involved actively any
> more. Also, he's a very nice reasonable person who isn't opposed to us
> or our use of AGPL really.

I don't doubt that! I am not expressing any judgements about the people
involved, only about their ideas.

> The whole Copyfree thing has been done in a way that *promotes* their
> Copyfree "pure libertarian" style things (which again, is not my view)

This seems entirely political, unlike "open source" (practical) and free
software (ethical), with no basis in reality (i.e. people will just take
your code and make it proprietary).

If they are as pure as you claim, I want to see them claim that a man
should be free to kill another man. If they don't, they have double
standards and if they do, they are insane!

> more than it focuses on attacking copyleft. That's not to say they like
> copyleft, but they don't go around spreading misinformation. They don't
> say "copyleft is evil, kill the GPL" or "GPL is bad for 'Open Source'"
> etc. They basically take an ethical position that is a different tactic
> than the one we prefer, but they are on the side of freedom, and this
> view exists. It truly and sincerely opposes proprietary software, which
> is what really matters.

If so, they care less about the freedom of users rather than the
abstract concept of freedom. Is that healthy?

Also, if they truly oppose proprietary software, why do the licenses
they pick create even more proprietary software? It doesn't make any sense!