[Foundation-l] Problems with the new license TOS
cimonavaro at gmail.com
Sat Apr 18 17:33:28 UTC 2009
> On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 12:45 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <
> cimonavaro at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I don't think the word "indisputably" means what you think it does.
>> Even if I agree on a very broad level that the phrasing is mildly
>> confusing to our re-users, and certainly not ideal, I think there have
>> been arguments defending the view that there isn't a change of form
>> for attribution which goes beyond what the license allows. I am not
>> convinced that those defensive arguments are wholly safe in the
>> absolute, but this does not mean I don't accept that others may think
> Once again you're trying to argue a belief which you yourself do not hold.
> In this case it's a quite clearly absurd belief, though. If the move
> changes nothing, why make it?
I do disagree it is remotely on point to say my phrasing above
implies *nothing* is changed, just that attribution cannot be
claimed to be saliently at play, as the current proposal is being
voted on, even if I personally think the terms of service in their
current phrasing are somewhat silly.
What is changed are precisely the things that RMS himself has
said are provisions of the GFDL that are a poor fit for us. That
is the issue, plain and simple. If you can't wrap your mind around
that concept, after we all on this list have drawn the diagram for
you again and again,...
> I guess someone might dispute what I said by
> changing the meaning of the word "attribution", but I don't consider that a
> dispute in substance.
> In any case, this proposal certainly *will* undermine the individual right
> to attribution held by individual contributors, so anyone who supports that
> right *should* vote against the proposal or refuse to vote at all. If you
> want to nitpick whether or not this is indisputable, fine, I'll let you have
> your way. But indisputable or not, it is a true fact.
To come half-way to meet you, even if I suspect you won't like it, I
do think there are sincere proponents of the current proposal, who
*do* see it as a wedge that can be used in the future to promote a
silly "free cultural works" agenda. That is as may be. That is for the
future. I personally think they are misguided in thinking such use
of this proposal, that clearly improves the situation in future, will in
the end work to the ends they envision, but I have to admit I am an
More information about the foundation-l