Subject: Re: Your old articles

From: Shlomi Fish <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 2 Apr 2011 10:00:25 +0300

Hi Dr. Stallman,

sorry for the late response.

I'm CCing this message to the Israeli "Hackers-IL" mailing list where there 
are many like-minded free software enthusiasts. I hope it's OK, as I don't see 
why this message should not be made public.

On Thursday 17 Mar 2011 14:40:50 Richard Stallman wrote:
>     I have read it now (I think I skimmed it earlier), and while I can
> relate to some of these opinions, I still don't think I should be able to
> call Free, Libre and Open Source Software (FLOSS or FOSS) either
> "open-source" or "free software" based on the circumstances at hand.
> 
> I cannot make any sense of that.  You seem to be rejecting something
> quite different from what my article says.

Well, I may have misunderstood your article and I apologise for that. I'll try 
to reread it again and get more to the bottom of it. That put aside, I'm going 
to make the new version of the story live after I finish writing this scene:

http://www.shlomifish.org/humour/human-hacking/human-hacking-field-guide-
v2/fine_cat.html

( short URL - http://xrl.us/bjmcdz ).

There are several improvements in this new version, and it naturally includes 
the changes to Jennifer's thought dialogue. So thanks again.

-------------------

On a different note: if humanly possible, I'd like to conduct an online 
interview with you regarding several questions I have in mind (including a . I 
will publish it here:

http://www.shlomifish.org/open-source/interviews/

The text of the interview (questions and answers) can be made a dual GFDL, as 
well as CC-by or CC-by-sa licence. If possible, I'd prefer to conduct the 
initial interview on your choice of Internet-based Instant Messaging protocol, 
and later on I'll convert it to XML-Grammar-Screenplay's Screenplay-Text (my 
own custom, but libre, format with a free software implementation on CPAN.),  
and afterwards, we and others can both edit it for correctness and coherency. 

One can find all my instant messaging account information (including the free-
as-in-freedom specifications of IRC and Jabber/XMPP) here:

http://www.shlomifish.org/me/contact-me/

You can easily set up a throwaway Jabber account and contact me on my Jabber 
accounts: [email-masked] and/or [email-masked] , and I believe 
Jabber supports some form of end-to-end encryption (in case it matters for 
such a thing).

Regards,

	Shlomi Fish

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Shlomi Fish       http://www.shlomifish.org/
The Case for File Swapping - http://shlom.in/file-swap

The prefix "God Said" has the extraordinary logical property of converting any
statement that follows it into a true one.

Please reply to list if it's a mailing list post - http://shlom.in/reply .

---

From: Shlomi Fish <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2011 11:13:19 +0300

Hi Dr. Stallman,

I apologise for the late response.

On Monday 04 Apr 2011 08:37:43 Richard Stallman wrote:
>     interview with you regarding several questions I have in mind
> (including a . I will publish it here:
> 
> You already declined to make the two promises that I always request
> for an interview, so I said no.

Well, will you be able to share what these two promises that you request are, 
just for the record? Furthermore, if you are not going to give me an 
interview, will you be so kind as to reply to my original questions, namely:

[ Questions ]

In any case, in this thread on the Creative Commons mailing list:

http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-community/2011-March/006049.html

We've been speculating about your opinion (and the FSF's official stance) 
about the licensing of non-software cultural/artistic/media works. As a 
result, I would be happy if you can answer the following questions, which I 
would like to share with the mailing list and possibly post them on one of my 
weblogs (with your permission).

Here goes:

1. I know you believe that non-free, public, software (which Joel Spolsky 
calls "shrinkwrap" software here - 
http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/FiveWorlds.html ) that is not free or 
even not entirely free, is illegitimate and immoral. However, do you believe 
that in an ideal world, such software should be illegal?

Alternatively, do you think the law should allow non-free software to be 
marketed (given some natural limitations on which restrictions would be held 
as legal and valid.) and protected, while still allowing competition from free 
software and naturaly advocacy against the use of non-free software?

2. Do you believe that one can prevent commercial use and commercial 
redistribution (i.e: mass selling for a profit) of their otherwise publicly 
available artwork? (Similar to the -nc variants of the Creative Commons 
licences.)

3. Do you believe that one can completely prevent derivative works of one's 
otherwise public artwork? (Similar to the -nd variants of the Creative Commons 
licences.).

4. In this Slashdot.org feature:

http://developers.slashdot.org/story/05/01/09/191257/

you were quoted as saying that:

[quote]
What is the future of free software development for games? Is it possible? 
Will the games ever equal or surpass their proprietary competitors? Why should 
we care? After thoroughly researching the free and open source software model, 
and interviewing both indie and free software game developers, author Matt 
Barton decided that the future is indeed very bright. Stallman is quoted here 
saying that game engines should be free, but approves of the notion that 
graphics, music, and stories could all be separate and treated differently 
(i.e., "Non-Free.")"
[/quote]

Can you confirm this?

[ / Questions ]

Finally, I should note that the second version of my "Human Hacking Field 
Guide" story, which includes the correct passage introducing you, is now alive 
at:

http://www.shlomifish.org/humour/human-hacking/#version_2

Thanks for the useful input. I'm also working on this, but it will take some 
time to finalise:

http://www.shlomifish.org/philosophy/foss-other-beasts/version-3/

Regards,

	Shlomi Fish

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Shlomi Fish       http://www.shlomifish.org/
"The Human Hacking Field Guide" - http://shlom.in/hhfg

If Botticelli were alive today, he'd be working for Vogue.
    -- http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Peter_Ustinov

---

From: "Nadav Har'El" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2011 16:42:48 +0300

> just for the record? Furthermore, if you are not going to give me an 

Shlomi, if you want someone to do you a favor (answer your questions), why
do you try so hard to alienate him? Why CC your discussion to a public mailing
list? No, the line "I hope it's OK, as I don't see why this message should not
be made public" doesn't make it any nicer to publish someone else's mail.

About his "requests", I have no idea what he's referring to, as I didn't
see all your correspondence, but I have a good guess: He's probably annoyed
that you use the terms "Linux" instead of "GNU/Linux", and "Open Source"
instead of "Free Software".

If you don't understand why his requests are justified, let me give you an
example: Imagine that some journalist from Al-Jazeerah (for example) comes
to interview Netanyahu, and his first question is something about the
"Zionist Occupation Army". It doesn't matter that this (jeish alichtilal
assayuni) is the term they use for our army - Netanyahu would object to this
term, and terminate the interview immediately. If the journalist wants to
get an answer out of him, he should try to use more neutral terms which his
interviewee would not find offensive - like, perhaps, "Israeli army". 

Like that hypothetical Al-Jazeerah journalist, you are free to use your
favorite terms in other places - just don't use them when contacting people
who are offended by the terms you prefer.

> that in an ideal world, such software should be illegal?

The word "illegal" in this case could have two meanings. The first (which
I doubt RMS would agree with) is that people who try to sell Shrink-Wrapped
software should be put in jail. The second - which I'd guess RMS would
prefer - is shrink-wrap will not be against the law, but simply unsupported
by the law: That the law will give makers of software and hardware less
"teeth" to bully clients with - no DMCA, unenforcable "shrink wrap licenses"
and so on.

> available artwork? (Similar to the -nc variants of the Creative Commons 

Why are you asking RMS this?
And are you asking this legally (will the -nc license "stick" in court) or
morally (is it a good idea)?

> otherwise public artwork? (Similar to the -nd variants of the Creative Commons 

Again, why are you asking RMS about CC licenses? And are you asking
legally or philosophically?

Clearly, RMS thinks it's *wrong* to prevent derivative works. The GPL and GFDL
are all about allowing derivative works. But there's an interesting exception -
the GFDL has the option of "invariant sections" - sections which cannot be
modified. It seems that RMS finds a slightly lesser value in allowing
modifications to text (and perhaps other forms of artistic expression) than
he finds in modification of software (which has a functional value, it's
not just a piece of art).

-- 
Nadav Har'El                        |       Sunday, Apr 17 2011, 13 Nisan 5771
[email-masked]             |-----------------------------------------
Phone +972-523-790466, ICQ 13349191 |The 3 stages of sex: Tri-weekly, try
http://nadav.harel.org.il           |weekly, try weakly.

---

From: Shlomi Fish <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2011 20:18:38 +0300

Hi Nadav,

On Sunday 17 Apr 2011 16:42:48 Nadav Har'El wrote:
> > Well, will you be able to share what these two promises that you request
> > are, just for the record? Furthermore, if you are not going to give me
> > an
> 
> do you try so hard to alienate him? Why CC your discussion to a public
> mailing list? No, the line "I hope it's OK, as I don't see why this
> message should not be made public" doesn't make it any nicer to publish
> someone else's mail.

Well, RMS CCed his messages to Hackers-IL as well, and my point in doing that 
is to have a record of our correspondence and his opinion.

> instead of "Free Software".

I have only used them in essays and blog posts I've written, which were not 
intended for him in particular. During my recent correspondence with him, I 
made sure to only use the FSF-blessed terminology with him. What I've written 
on my home site and weblogs elsewhere for public consumption should be none of 
his concern.

> assayuni) is the term they use for our army - Netanyahu would object to
> this term, and terminate the interview immediately. If the journalist
> wants to get an answer out of him, he should try to use more neutral terms
> which his interviewee would not find offensive - like, perhaps, "Israeli
> army".
> 

I did exactly that. :-)

> > http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/FiveWorlds.html ) that is not free
> > or even not entirely free, is illegitimate and immoral. However, do you
> > believe that in an ideal world, such software should be illegal?
> 
> "teeth" to bully clients with - no DMCA, unenforcable "shrink wrap
> licenses" and so on.

Well, I'm trying to get to Dr. Stallman's opinion of the matter, not what 
other people have interepreted that.

> > redistribution (i.e: mass selling for a profit) of their otherwise
> > publicly available artwork? (Similar to the -nc variants of the Creative
> > Commons licences.)
> 

The "can" was indeed a misphrasing on my part (it should be a "should"). 
Naturally, I know "not-for-commercial-use" licences are enforcable in court, 
but I was asking him if he thinks they are ethical.

> 
> > 3. Do you believe that one can completely prevent derivative works of
> > one's otherwise public artwork? (Similar to the -nd variants of the
> > Creative Commons licences.).
> 

I'm trying to see if he approves of them. Some people say he approves of such 
non-free (but still possibly not 100% restricted) cultural works outside the 
realm of software. Other people claim that he thinks all cultural works (or 
possibly "content") should abide by the same guidelines of the Free Software 
Definition ( http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html ). 

As a result, I'm trying to get to the bottom of his opinion.

> 
> Clearly, RMS thinks it's *wrong* to prevent derivative works. 

In software perhaps, or in its documentation, but what about in essays, or 
images, or audio files, or video files, or animations or fictional stories or 
what not?

I should note that here: 
http://news.slashdot.org/story/06/02/07/1733220/

<QUOTE>
"Richard Stallman has stated in an interview that he no longer supports 
Creative Commons licenses. In the interview carried on LinuxP2P.com, and which 
is largely about the P2P and DRM issues, Stallman ends by saying: 'I no longer 
endorse Creative Commons. I cannot endorse Creative Commons as a whole, 
because some of its licenses are unacceptable.' He suggests instead using the 
GPL for creative works." 

The crux of his argument is that, since he disagrees with some of the CC 
licenses, and people tend to lump them all together, he feels compelled to 
reject them all. What's your take? Are some Creative Commons licenses worth 
using, even if others aren't?
</QUOTE>

Since then, after the Creative Commons retracted 
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/devnations/2.0/ , I recall seeing 
something that he said he supports them again and now CC-by and CC-by-sa are 
listed under:

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html

> The GPL and
> GFDL are all about allowing derivative works. 

Yes, because that is their spirit. However, that does not mean that he 
believes that it is not acceptable to release one's work under a more 
restrictive licence, that does not allow derivative works. Even the text of 
the GPL can not be changed or misused because allowing people to change it 
will cause anarchy as many different licences claiming to be "The GNU General 
Public Licese".

> But there's an interesting
> exception - the GFDL has the option of "invariant sections" - sections
> which cannot be modified. It seems that RMS finds a slightly lesser value
> in allowing modifications to text (and perhaps other forms of artistic
> expression) than he finds in modification of software (which has a
> functional value, it's not just a piece of art).

Agreed. My question is how he feels about people using CC licences with -nd 
and/or -nc for their own non-software needs.

BTW, here is an amusing link:

http://www.gplv4.org/

Regards,

	Shlomi Fish

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Shlomi Fish       http://www.shlomifish.org/
"Humanity" - Parody of Modern Life - http://shlom.in/humanity

Chuck Norris refactors 10 million lines of Perl code before lunch.