[License-discuss] For Public Comment: The Libre Source License
mm at ucw.sh
Wed Aug 21 23:38:33 UTC 2019
On Wednesday, 21 August 2019 19:59:03 CEST Russell McOrmond wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 12:38 PM Moritz Maxeiner <mm at ucw.sh> wrote:
> > Why does my wish for derivative works of certain software to be available
> > to
> > the public (and legitimate use of the law to achieve that) bother you so
> > much?
> > Why your fixation on "compensation"?
> BTW: FLOSS stands for Free/Libre and Open Source Software --- it is an
> acronym to discuss Free Software (and the FSF) and Open Source (and the OSI
> and its OSD) all at the same time without having to include a paragraph of
> explanation every time. Your attempt to carve the OSI and OSD out of FLOSS
> makes no sense.
I've attempted no such thing.
> Am I understanding you correctly that you reject the entire concept of
> > copyright, then? Because otherwise the fact that I hold copyright makes it
> > a
> > legitimate concern.
> I reject the concept of copyright regulating private activities.
> To suggest I am rejecting copyright itself is a straw man I'm not going to
> bother with.
> Why is this primary concern of yours a legitimate concern at all?
, which in no uncertain terms implies that my concerns (as a copyright holder)
are not legitimate. I hold the view that being the copyright holder makes my
concerns about a work of mine inherently legitimate (unless in violation with
the law) and as such your implication - to me - can only make sense if you
reject copyright all together, which is why I disagree with it being wrongly
depicted as a straw man (BTW: it would've been a straw man if I had claimed
you actually hold this view and then argued against you based on that claim
instead of asking you for clarification and providing you an answer to your
question for one of the possible answers to that question).
> > What is
> > > the value of this hypothetical software you believe you have a right to
> > > know exists as soon as someone types it into their private computer?
> > You confound me and the public. I don't recall stating that I wanted to be
> > informed. I want the public to be informed.
> You are the overly powerful copyright holder that is demanding a private
> activity be regulated by copyright law to force disclosure to a third
> party, so there is no reason to differentiate you from any other third
> party as it is your excessive demand that is at issue.
Due to us going in circles (I don't think we'll see any common ground on this
issue) and your continued hostile tone I'm going to bow out of this sub
More information about the License-discuss