Logan Streondj | 28 May 14:43 2015
Picon

Ethics was: The FSF Allows No Derivatives]]


On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 07:26:21AM -0400, Yoni Rabkin wrote:
> 
> 
> Drawing an equivalent of any sort between machines, which are lifeless
> manufactured objects, and human beings, and attempting to say that those
> objects are as unique as humans is ethically wrong. 

It's ethically fine for any Animist, Pantheist and Panpsychist.
I don't know what view you ascribe to, that would see otherwise.

> This is called
> dehumanizing, and is the source of much trouble. Please don't do that. I
> truly hope (no cynicism in my words here) that nobody will ever treat
> you or anyone you love the same way as a lifeless object, or even try to
> claim that you are like one in order to justify less than humane
> behavior. Each person is a world onto themselves; this is why life is
> precious.

That sounds like you treat animals, things and thoughts with
less respect and tenderness than you do humans. :-O

arthur_torrey | 28 May 04:03 2015
Picon
Picon

Re: libreplanet-discuss Digest, Vol 63, Issue 23

Possibly a copy-right violation, but like it says....

------------------
Arthur Torrey - <arthur_torrey@...>
-------------------

----- Original Message -----
From: libreplanet-discuss-request@...
To: libreplanet-discuss@...
Sent: Wed, 27 May 2015 16:00:15 -0000 (UTC)
Subject: libreplanet-discuss Digest, Vol 63, Issue 23

Send libreplanet-discuss mailing list submissions to
	libreplanet-discuss@...

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	libreplanet-discuss-request@...

You can reach the person managing the list at
	libreplanet-discuss-owner@...

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of libreplanet-discuss digest..."

Today's Topics: (as well as the last several days....)

   1. Re: Fwd: The FSF Allows No Derivatives] (Patrick Anderson)

(Continue reading)

John Pozzi | 27 May 14:59 2015
Picon
Picon

remove from list

Logan Streondj | 23 May 22:23 2015
Picon

Re: Fwd: The FSF Allows No Derivatives,

sorry same old reply-all issues again,
accidentaly doubled one due to confusion.
here is my recent response to will hill
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Logan Streondj <streondj-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
Date: Sat, May 23, 2015 at 4:18 PM
Subject: Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Fwd: The FSF Allows No Derivatives,
To: Will Hill <will.hillnotes <at> gmail.com>


On Sat, May 23, 2015 at 01:27:05AM -0500, Will Hill wrote:
> You might remember the "RMS is a sexist" fiasco, where all sorts of articles
> poured out misrepresenting the Virgin of Emacs as the thing it parodies.
> That's a minor but nasty example.

any pseudo-celebrity could expect that kind of reaction for such
statements, especially when the community only has 3% females.
It begs an explanation, people may be quick to jump on a simple
one.

> Software owners are constantly staging
> these things while their advertising and other messages are completely
> degraded.
>
> This is a systematic thing and your question has encouraged me to finish up a
> few essays I've been working on.  Some suggested reading includes,
>
> http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20071023002351958
> http://techrights.org/2009/02/08/microsoft-evilness-galore/
> http://techrights.org/2008/12/27/microsoft-shills-aka-te-secrets/
> http://www.catb.org/esr/halloween/halloween1.html
> http://archive09.linux.com/articles/38081
> http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20100312150121798
> http://techrights.org/2009/03/16/smear-campaigns-against-foss-proponents/
> http://techrights.org/2008/03/17/manufacturing-abuse/
> http://blog.wired.com/business/2007/03/enough_about_me.html
> http://techrights.org/2009/05/02/perception-management-at-microsoft/
> http://www.cypherpunks.to/~peter/zdnet.html

I guess that is an example of one company (Microsoft), who
doesn't like libreware. they have a pretty bad track record in
general for someone that abuses their power, in many domains.

though you said software-owners plural, so I'm wondering who
these alleged others are.

If it's just Microsoft, then I'd say it's more of a "single
actor" rather than some kind of "pattern".
so far all the publishers you've linked to seem to also be
supportive of libreware, and disliking of Microsofts behaviour.


>
>
>
> On Friday 22 May 2015, streondj <at> gmail.com wrote:
> > will hill" easy to observe pattern of publishers missrepresenting GNU
> > and the FSF by all means at their disposal"
> >
> > examples?
>
>

Logan Streondj | 23 May 22:19 2015
Picon

Re: The FSF Allows No Derivatives,


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Logan Streondj <streondj-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
Date: Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 8:06 AM
Subject: Re: [libreplanet-discuss] The FSF Allows No Derivatives,
To: Richard Stallman <rms-mXXj517/zsQ@public.gmane.org>


On Sat, Apr 25, 2015 at 01:03:24PM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
> [[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
> [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
> [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]
>
>   > A friend of mine emailed Stallman about creating FAN translations of
>   > published works that have been locked up by exclusive privileges, (not
>   > questioning the legality of it because obviously we know the answer to
>   > that question even if I don't agree with how the law works), but
>   > questioning the morality of it. And he actually replied. He said
>   > creating derivatives of published works without permission is morally
>   > ok, but not translations. Translations are not ok.
>
> I certainly did not say that -- I think someone misunderstood and
> got it backwards.
>
> The problem with translation is that if it is not done right
> it has the effect of altering the point.  A license that
> permits anyone to translate a work has the effect of permitting
> anyone to alter its position.
>
> If there were a way to permit only correct, clear translation,
> I would permit that -- but there is no realistic way to assure
> that a translation is correct.

#english:  if thou write opinion in speak program language then
capable it translate clear.  we live in time with many
languages.  capable many peoples benefit from liberty
opinion.  translate program improve with time and code.
write by Logan.
#español: si tú a-escribir la-opinión  en idioma programa
hablar entonces capaz  ello  traducir claro .   nosotros
vivir en tiempo con muchos idiomas.  capaz  muchos
gente  ser  beneficio desde la-opinión libertad.
programa traducir  mejorar con tiempo y código.
a-escribir por Logan.
#русский:  если ты запись мнение, в говоритьом программаом
языку тогда способный оно́ перевести ясно.  мы жить в време с
myi языком.  способный myi люди, выгода от свободаом
мнени.  перевестая программа, улучшать с ki .  запись
по Logan.
#français: si tu écrire l'opinion, en la langue programme
parler, puis capable on  traduire le clair.  le nous , vivre en
le temps, avec les beaucoup langues.  capable les
beaucoup personness. dès l'opinion liberté.  la
programme traduire, améliorer avec le temps et code.
écrire par le Logan.

 #nodejs: {"if":(thee .write(opinion, {"in":(language .program
 .speak)})), "then":(/*capable*/it .
 .translate(clear))}); we .live({"in":(time),
 "with":(many .language)}); /*capable*/many people
 .benefit({"from":(opinion .liberty)}); program
 .translate .improve({"with":(time && code)});
 write({"by":(Logan)});

 #mwak: wathpyamkwalni tuhu piynha yishhi ku tihu kliyha tyifhi
 kiphtwahya kwalmyihmwah taymni wihu lishhiya luntmyihhu
 liyspiynsu lafthi kiphya taymki kuwtmwah tyifpyamhu
 muyphiya Loganhwu yishhiya

>
> See http://gnu.org/philosophy/copyright-vs-community.html for my views
> about modification of non-functional works such as art and opinion.
>
> --
> Dr Richard Stallman
> President, Free Software Foundation
> 51 Franklin St
> Boston MA 02110
> USA
> www.fsf.org  www.gnu.org
> Skype: No way! See stallman.org/skype.html.
>

Terry | 16 May 13:34 2015

Re: Fwd: The FSF Allows No Derivatives

On 05/16/2015 03:38 AM, libreplanet-discuss-request@... wrote:
> But this is all tangential. You and others have failed to provide any
> reasonable justification for RMS' use of ND other than an ill-founded
> claim that it actually helps avoid misrepresentation.
The fact that we have created legal structures that try and create
ownerships for intangible things has caused a great many issues and no
doubt will continue to do so.  However that is the current reality we
are all dealing with.  The initial question was thought provoking. 
Stallman/FSF choosing ND licenses for anything is in the end their
choice to make and does not require a justification be made.  Even when
we don't agree with licensing choices (Microsoft) we should still
respect that presently it is their right to choose.  I hope you apply in
writing for permission to make your derivative(s) and are granted it.  I
apologize if I seemed brash before.  Personally I am done with this
thread but I do look forward to other interesting topics.

Logan Streondj | 16 May 11:38 2015
Picon

Fwd: Fwd: The FSF Allows No Derivatives

another thing that always trips me up on these GNU mailing lists,
is that I always forget to hit g for "reply-all", since only GNU mailing lists have this requirement.
I'm sure a lot of discussion is lost due to these foolish settings.
for all other mailing lists ever if you hit reply, it replies to everyone,
or the mailing list, as default.


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Logan Streondj <streondj-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
Date: Fri, May 15, 2015 at 9:59 PM
Subject: Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Fwd: The FSF Allows No Derivatives
To: Yoni Rabkin <yoni-mSwJNUv1KyPR7s880joybQ@public.gmane.org>


On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 05:27:18PM -0400, Yoni Rabkin wrote:
> Aaron Wolf <wolftune <at> riseup.net> writes:
>
> > Why the incredible desire to use existing source code? Why not use the
> > wasted time and efforts spent arguing about this reverse engineering
> > your software and just be done with it. …
>
> Because works of personal opinion are different than useful software.
>
> --
>    "Cut your own wood and it will warm you twice"

works of personal opinion can be software with a speakable
programming language. :-D

In fact, works of opinion are used to program humans,
which have more processing power than at least most computers,
possibly than any computer thus far created.

So in a way you could say, works of opinion, are extremely
powerful pieces of software.

--
Logan




---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Logan Streondj <streondj-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
Date: Sat, May 16, 2015 at 5:33 AM
Subject: Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Fwd: The FSF Allows No Derivatives
To: Yoni Rabkin <yoni-mSwJNUv1KyPR7s880joybQ@public.gmane.org>


On Sat, May 16, 2015 at 12:03:29AM -0400, Yoni Rabkin wrote:
> Logan Streondj <streondj <at> gmail.com> writes:
> >
> > So in a way you could say, works of opinion, are extremely
> > powerful pieces of software.
>
> I license my own blog under CC-BY-SA but I don't see, so far, a concrete

that's good to hear :-D

> problem with the FSF licensing essays on the site with ND.
>
> I think that a powerful argument would be if someone created something
> real: the GCC of essays if you will. Then point the FSF at that and say:
> "See, this wonderful thing is what you are not allowing me to
> release. Please change the the ND license on those essays so that the
> whole free software community can benefit from my work."

well, like you I'd be releasing it as share-alike,
thus wouldn't have to bother with GNU's oddities in this domain.
actually more likely i'd be publishing it under GPL,
since it is software code afterall, human software.

> But I don't know what that would be. If I did, then I would probably
> appreciate the point being made about why ND is bad in this context.

it's not bad for me per sey, it is bad for GNU.

so for instance I, or someone like you who uses a share-alike
license, publishes a story or essay which moves people into
action to use their software.

due to the share-alike ability, it can not only be translated,
but be refined to be effective in different cultural contexts.
for instance some western-culture idioms may be offensive in
other cultures.

complicated technical jargon could be expanded into less
ambigious and easier to understand words and phrases.

Alternatively there might be an error in the original essay,
such as either typo's or citations, or even dead-links, all of
which could be updated in subsequent reposts of the original.

with the ND license for GNU however, that restricts the audience
to be English speakers, who understand the technical jargon of
English computer programmers.
Jargon like "string", "character" and "loops" don't inform lay
people, only those with formal education in computer
programming.

while likely not the only reason, it may be a reason why the
open-source community is so limited to mainly English speaking
white males.

When I was a Windows user, it was the reading of news articles,
and GNU "opinion pieces", which motivated me to switch over to
Linux.  This however is not a viable solution for even Spanish
speaking folk which pervade GNU-Social.

I've even come across people from a Spanish speaking background
on GNU-Social that don't even know about the GNU Gnu
association, likely because it's not translated to Spanish
speaking internet.

While I'm not aware of any studies on this matter, but I would
imagine that there would be extremely few non-English GNU
supporters, since obviously they can't know much about it,
due to ND licensing.


Yoni Rabkin | 16 May 06:03 2015
Picon

Re: Fwd: The FSF Allows No Derivatives

Logan Streondj <streondj@...> writes:

> On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 05:27:18PM -0400, Yoni Rabkin wrote:
>> Aaron Wolf <wolftune@...> writes:
>> 
>> > Why the incredible desire to use existing source code? Why not use the
>> > wasted time and efforts spent arguing about this reverse engineering
>> > your software and just be done with it. …
>> 
>> Because works of personal opinion are different than useful software.
>> 
>> -- 
>>    "Cut your own wood and it will warm you twice"
>
> works of personal opinion can be software with a speakable
> programming language. :-D
>
> In fact, works of opinion are used to program humans,
> which have more processing power than at least most computers,
> possibly than any computer thus far created.
>
> So in a way you could say, works of opinion, are extremely
> powerful pieces of software.

I license my own blog under CC-BY-SA but I don't see, so far, a concrete
problem with the FSF licensing essays on the site with ND.

I think that a powerful argument would be if someone created something
real: the GCC of essays if you will. Then point the FSF at that and say:
"See, this wonderful thing is what you are not allowing me to
release. Please change the the ND license on those essays so that the
whole free software community can benefit from my work."

But I don't know what that would be. If I did, then I would probably
appreciate the point being made about why ND is bad in this context.

--

-- 
   "Cut your own wood and it will warm you twice"

Terry | 15 May 18:14 2015

Re: Fwd: The FSF Allows No Derivatives

Why is the incredible desire to quote but not? Why not use the wasted
time and efforts spent arguing about this rewriting things your own
words and just be done with it. This horse has been beat enough and
should be dead already.

On 05/15/2015 10:00 AM, libreplanet-discuss-request@... wrote:
> Re: Fwd:  The FSF Allows No Derivatives

Rudolf | 11 May 04:28 2015
Picon

GNU pricing

someone made a utility that calculates how much you owe after using GNU tools, kinda like a Software as a Service: https://github.com/diafygi/gnu-pricing

the website for it is excellent: https://diafygi.github.io/gnu-pricing/website/

"we've scaled enough. it's time to monetize"

Rudolf
web developer/blogger, sourcecontribute.com
Logan Streondj | 27 Apr 14:08 2015
Picon

Fwd: The FSF Allows No Derivatives,


On Sat, Apr 25, 2015 at 01:03:24PM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
> [[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
> [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
> [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]
>
>   > A friend of mine emailed Stallman about creating FAN translations of
>   > published works that have been locked up by exclusive privileges, (not
>   > questioning the legality of it because obviously we know the answer to
>   > that question even if I don't agree with how the law works), but
>   > questioning the morality of it. And he actually replied. He said
>   > creating derivatives of published works without permission is morally
>   > ok, but not translations. Translations are not ok.
>
> I certainly did not say that -- I think someone misunderstood and
> got it backwards.
>
> The problem with translation is that if it is not done right
> it has the effect of altering the point.  A license that
> permits anyone to translate a work has the effect of permitting
> anyone to alter its position.
>
> If there were a way to permit only correct, clear translation,
> I would permit that -- but there is no realistic way to assure
> that a translation is correct.

#english:  if thou write opinion in speak program language then
capable it translate clear.  we live in time with many
languages.  capable many peoples benefit from liberty
opinion.  translate program improve with time and code.
write by Logan.
#español: si tú a-escribir la-opinión  en idioma programa
hablar entonces capaz  ello  traducir claro .   nosotros
vivir en tiempo con muchos idiomas.  capaz  muchos
gente  ser  beneficio desde la-opinión libertad.
programa traducir  mejorar con tiempo y código.
a-escribir por Logan.
#русский:  если ты запись мнение, в говоритьом программаом
языку тогда способный оно́ перевести ясно.  мы жить в време с
myi языком.  способный myi люди, выгода от свободаом
мнени.  перевестая программа, улучшать с ki .  запись
по Logan.
#français: si tu écrire l'opinion, en la langue programme
parler, puis capable on  traduire le clair.  le nous , vivre en
le temps, avec les beaucoup langues.  capable les
beaucoup personness. dès l'opinion liberté.  la
programme traduire, améliorer avec le temps et code.
écrire par le Logan.

 #nodejs: {"if":(thee .write(opinion, {"in":(language .program
 .speak)})), "then":(/*capable*/it .
 .translate(clear))}); we .live({"in":(time),
 "with":(many .language)}); /*capable*/many people
 .benefit({"from":(opinion .liberty)}); program
 .translate .improve({"with":(time && code)});
 write({"by":(Logan)});

 #mwak: wathpyamkwalni tuhu piynha yishhi ku tihu kliyha tyifhi
 kiphtwahya kwalmyihmwah taymni wihu lishhiya luntmyihhu
 liyspiynsu lafthi kiphya taymki kuwtmwah tyifpyamhu
 muyphiya Loganhwu yishhiya

>
> See http://gnu.org/philosophy/copyright-vs-community.html for my views
> about modification of non-functional works such as art and opinion.
>
> --
> Dr Richard Stallman
> President, Free Software Foundation
> 51 Franklin St
> Boston MA 02110
> USA
> www.fsf.org  www.gnu.org
> Skype: No way! See stallman.org/skype.html.
>


Gmane