matthew.flaschen at gatech.edu
Tue Jan 8 23:42:09 UTC 2008
Philippe Verdy wrote:
> Unproven facts. The FSF has never condemned the existence of proprietary
> schemes, but the fact that free software should have an equal right of
The FSF says, "The idea that the proprietary-software social system—the
system that says you are not allowed to share or change software—is
antisocial, that it is unethical, that it is simply wrong, may come as a
surprise to some readers." (http://www.gnu.org/gnu/thegnuproject.html).
I don't think it gets much more explicit than that.
Please stop misstating the positions of others.
> ("Free as freedom" as they claim since always, not "free as as
What does that have to do with an "equal right of existence" for
The FSF supports the development of commerce, and even prohibits the
> restriction of its licences against commercial use (so CC-NC licences are
> incompatible and really non free.)
Again, what does this have to do with proprietary vs. free software?
>But the FSF also recognized what others had made before (notably with the
>original BSD and MIT licences, that have since then been abused and reused in closed
>proprietary schemes because they were not enough protected, and that's the
>main reason why the GPL was created).
Proprietary derivatives of permissive licenses are not an "abuse"; they
are a natural consequence of the license.
> It's clearly the supporters of closed proprietary schemes trying to divide
> the movement, like they have already done against by severely impacting the
> "public domain" (which was popular in the 1970's and the early 1980's) so
> much that it is now very insecure and considered invalid and unusable (too
> risky to use for long term projects) by many corporate or governmental
> users, because it is now easily defeated by laws with retroactive effects
> and by patents that can steal almost everything in it.
Copyright term extensions aren't relevant to public domain dedications,
though such dedications may be invalid for other reasons.
> it's impossible to prove "prior art" with
> content published in the public domain without the signature secured by the
> copyright notice).
Proving date of publication does not require a copyright notice.
More information about the License-discuss