"Daniel Mayer" maveric149@yahoo.com schrieb:
What is the difference between free and copyleft? Fundamentally, a document is free if ''it'' may be used freely: freely read, freely copied, freely modified, and freely distributed (see http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html or http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines). A document is copyleft if ''its derivatives'' may be used freely.
When I say 'free' I mean free as in cost and free as in freedom.
Well, then the non-copyleft free licenses should fall under that definition as least as much as copyleft ones. There's no difference in cost (the only difference would be non-commercial licenses, which neither of you seem to be advocating), and in freedom they're more free.
... We can have this argument, but let's be clear about what we're arguing over. AFAIK, ''nobody'' is advocating that Wikimedia publish non-free articles. (There is the issue of incorporating fair use items ''within'' articles, such as quotations and images, but that is a different discussion.) The question is whether their freedom must be protected by copyleft.
I'm advocating the full use of the word free (no cost and copyleft).
Then you have a strange meaning of 'free'.
"You may do with it what you want, provided you mention my name" is more free than "You may do with it what you want, provided you mention my name and give others the same rights and obligations".
Andre Engels
Andre Engels wrote in part:
Daniel Mayer (maveric149) wrote:
I'm advocating the full use of the word free (no cost and copyleft).
Then you have a strange meaning of 'free'.
"You may do with it what you want, provided you mention my name" is more free than "You may do with it what you want, provided you mention my name and give others the same rights and obligations".
The Free Software Foundation would argue that the final condition is not a significant restriction on the downstream user's freedoms. Thus they would say that CC-by and GNU FDL ''are'' free, period. And certainly the latter condition makes it more certain that future derived works will in fact be free at all.
I think that it's healthier to take a less absolute stance. There is (or was, I don't know the latest developments) a big debate in the Debian project about whether the GNU FDL is free when it's combined with Invariant Sections. (For example, the FSF's own GNU emacs manual has an IS. Certainly the FSF believes that this is free, but many people in the Debian community disagree.) What they ''should'' be able to agree on, to get started, is that the GNU FDL is ''less'' free when used with an IS; then they can start discussing whether it's free ''enough''. But since most debaters take an absolutist position on the criteria for freedom, they can't even get started.
So an unlicensed copyright is less free than GNU FDL with an IS, and GNU FDL with an IS is less free than GNU FDL without an IS, and GNU FDL without an IS is (arguably [*]) less free than CC-by-sa, and CC-by-sa is less free than CC-by, and CC-by is less free than PD. But on the other hand, there are ''reasons'' for each of the restrictions, including reasons that restrictions that may increase freedom overall. So the question for any project (GNU, Debian, Wikimedia, etc) is not "free or not free" but "how free is free enough"? GNU and Debian are answering this differently, and that's OK. Within Wikimedia, Wikipedia and Wikinews may answer this differently too!
[*] This has to do with the "overbroad DRM clause" in the GNU FDL. It is a subtle point that only the extreme anti-FDL people care about; but even so, people should be able to agree that it makes a difference to ''relative'' freedom.
-- Toby
--- Andre Engels engelsAG@t-online.de wrote:
I'm advocating the full use of the word free (no cost and copyleft).
Then you have a strange meaning of 'free'.
It is just the foundation upon which the free software movement is based. It is also the meaning we have been operating on since day one. We in fact make our content more free by not allowing invariant sections.
"You may do with it what you want, provided you mention my name" is more free than "You may do with it what you want, provided you mention my name and give others the same rights and obligations".
The second ensures the freedom of the content from proprietary control. Thus it creates a disincentive to fork the content, or at least creates the ability the backport improvements to the original (or any derivative work, for that matter).
If we are serious about leading a revolution in how content is distributed and controlled, then we must continue using the full sense of the word 'free' (gratis and libre). Negative feedback loops will not get us there.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/
Daniel Mayer (maveric149) wrote:
Andre Engels wrote:
Mav wrote:
I'm advocating the full use of the word free (no cost and copyleft).
Then you have a strange meaning of 'free'.
It is just the foundation upon which the free software movement is based.
This is really not true!
The Free Sotware Foundation takes a specific principled stance that one CAN charge money for free software code and free documentation (see http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html).
It is also the meaning we have been operating on since day one.
I wasn't here on day one, but I'm pretty sure that this isn't true either. For as long I've been here (now 2 years), there's always been talk in the air about making distributions on compact discs or cheap newsprint and selling them at prices that are quite low -- but still large enough to recoup the investment in the materials and the printing. I am confident that Jimbo -- a true believer in capitalism -- is looking forward to the day when distributing Wikimedia content starts making some far-sighted printing companies a good profit.
We in fact make our content more free by not allowing invariant sections.
Yep! And if you believe Nathanael Nerode (see http://home.twcny.rr.com/nerode/neroden/fdl.html), it is only through doing this that we become free at all. ^_^
If we are serious about leading a revolution in how content is distributed and controlled, then we must continue using the full sense of the word 'free' (gratis and libre). Negative feedback loops will not get us there.
I don't see how the «gratis» bit prevents irreversible forks. On the other hand, you need a «copyleft» bit to prevent these, and that is simply not included in the accepted meaning of the term "free".
-- Toby
--- Toby Bartels toby+wikipedia@math.ucr.edu wrote:
It is just the foundation upon which the free software movement is based.
This is really not true!
Yes it is. *EVERYTHING* licensed under the GNU GPL can be used free of charge - whether or not you have access to it is a separate matter. You can charge money for the service of providing the software (even getting a profit from that) and also charge for the service, but you are not buying a license to use the software (which is the proprietary model).
The Free Sotware Foundation takes a specific principled stance that one CAN charge money for free software code and free documentation (see http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html).
That is talking about DISTRIBUTION! Just because the software *itself* is free as in cost and freedom, does not mean that it has to be distributed free of charge. Same for free/copyleft content.
It is also the meaning we have been operating on since day one.
I wasn't here on day one, but I'm pretty sure that this isn't true either. For as long I've been here (now 2 years), there's always been talk in the air about making distributions on compact discs or cheap newsprint and selling them at prices that are quite low -- but still large enough to recoup the investment in the materials and the printing. I am confident that Jimbo -- a true believer in capitalism -- is looking forward to the day when distributing Wikimedia content starts making some far-sighted printing companies a good profit.
Again you are missing the entire point and confusing access with what something actually is. Our text has been free in both senses of the word from day one and will remain libre until its copyright has expired (then it will only be gratis). Distribution is a different matter - we could charge a high fee for people to even view it on the Internet, but somebody else could charge nothing (as we do now and for as long as I can help it). THAT makes the content free - anybody can do whatever they want to do with it so long as they preserve those rights for others and follow a few simple rules.
So there would be nothing wrong for charging a fee for a CD or book that contains our content. We are *free* even to make a profit on that. What we are not free to do is claim exclusive distribution rights on that content.
See what I mean when I say that the content *itself* is free? It, itself, is free from most types of control. In a sense it has been liberated has and almost has a life of its own. Even selling your copyright to a copyleft text will not change that fact (such a sale would be, for practical reasons, useless due to the fact that the content has been liberated).
If we are serious about leading a revolution in how content is distributed
and
controlled, then we must continue using the full sense of the word 'free' (gratis and libre). Negative feedback loops will not get us there.
I don't see how the �gratis� bit prevents irreversible forks. On the other hand, you need a �copyleft� bit to prevent these, and that is simply not included in the accepted meaning of the term "free".
The English language word 'free' isn't the best one for this. I will use gratis and libre from now on.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/
Daniel Mayer (maveric149) wrote:
Toby Bartels wrote:
Mav wrote
It [the combination of free as libre + gratis] is just the foundation upon which the free software movement is based.
This is really not true!
Yes it is. *EVERYTHING* licensed under the GNU GPL can be used free of charge - whether or not you have access to it is a separate matter. You can charge money for the service of providing the software (even getting a profit from that) and also charge for the service, but you are not buying a license to use the software (which is the proprietary model).
I am at least in part misunderstanding you. If what you mean by the «gratis» bit is that the ''licence'' (which provides the «libre» bit) is provided free of charge, then you are certainly correct that this is essential to free software.
That said, I still don't think that it's really accurate to say that «libre» + «gratis» is the foundation of the movement. The foundation is purely «libre»; «gratis» is only a means to that end.
The English language word 'free' isn't the best one for this. I will use gratis and libre from now on.
So are you explicitly including «copyleft» as part of the meaning of your term "libre"? If so, then that still might be confusing, since there are other free/open people that say "libre" in order to avoid confusion with «gratis», but they usually mean the same as the FSF does by "free", which does not require «copyleft».
-- Toby
--- Toby Bartels toby+wikipedia@math.ucr.edu wrote:
I am at least in part misunderstanding you. If what you mean by the �gratis� bit is that the ''licence'' (which provides the �libre� bit) is provided free of charge, then you are certainly correct that this is essential to free software.
That said, I still don't think that it's really accurate to say that �libre� + �gratis� is the foundation of the movement. The foundation is purely �libre�; �gratis� is only a means to that end.
That is a valid viewpoint. In a far more fair world we wouldn't have copyrights and patents at all. People would just freely work together to advance knowledge and we would not have to deal with copyright and patent rubbish. But in the world we live in we have to use the existing rules to get what we want. So we write licenses to ensure content/software has some measure of freedom by giving away certain rights we have over that content/software.
The English language word 'free' isn't the best one for this. I will use gratis and libre from now on.
So are you explicitly including �copyleft� as part of the meaning of your term "libre"?
If the content itself is liberated from control, then it is libre. I'm sure some people say many different things and try to draw a distinction between libre and copyleft. For me the only practical way for content to be truly libre is for it to be copyleft - otherwise (to use an analogy) its descendants (derivative works) can be enslaved (put under proprietary control).
We can agree to disagree over the nuances.
Pax.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org