[PD-dev] Political Impropriety
hans at eds.org
Tue Jan 3 09:14:15 CET 2006
On Jan 2, 2006, at 1:07 PM, ydegoyon at free.fr wrote:
> at least, some reasonable words from some reasonable person.
>> I'm sorry to perpetuate this thread, and promise not to reply again
>> and heed Frank's advice. I too think this discussion is getting
>> childish. I've changed the subject line because I do see personal
>> names on subject lines as totally gross ..
> you're right, i find the procede very insulting and fascistic ..
>> Moreover, it is inappropriate and out of place in this list, IMHO.
> it's only to explain that i certainly know what it means
> when i write 'NOT FOR REPRESSIVE USE'
> and that i will not take that statement away.
> i'm also here with people who suffered from Pinochet,
> you can check indymedia, radio numero critico and radio neta ( valpo ).
>> When you attack a single software developer for
>> copyrighting their software (and no, I don't necessarily agree
>> personally with that approach, in that I personally try to find the
>> funding to release in the open), you undermine the real fight against
>> software progress and the freedom organisations such as the FFII
>> campaign for.
> the problem is to copyright something like
> 'internationalisation of pd'
> 'unit testing in pd'
> which are really ( or should be ) common and shared concepts.
> the second problem is to present DesireData
> as a new project, independent of PD
> ( and, de facto, to copyright it ).
> the problem is to copyright what you haven't done alone..
> the problem is ethical..
> and i know i'm right.
> saludos y feliz anio,
Copyright does not cover concepts, only implementations. Patents and
trademarks cover concepts.
If you don't believe in copyright, then put your work in the public
PiDiP is currently copyrighted and has a license that has terms that
the Free Software Foundation, among others, says makes your software
Most free software developers seem to believe that copyright can be
used to make things more free, and they release work under the GNU GPL.
Or others just want some credit and use the BSD license, like what the
PiDiP license is based on.
Its a waste of all of our time to fight about this, but it is
worthwhile to be clear in our desired goals and how they relate to
copyright. I strongly believe in working against repression. I also
strongly believe that free software will only serve to strengthen that
cause, and that making non-free software hinders that cause, even if
the restrictions are with noble intent.
For your situation, I would recommend using the GNU GPL, therefore any
work that a repressor might do on that software, must be shared with
all by law. This will only help people fighting repression. Having
additional restrictions only makes our lives more difficult without
slowing down someone like the U.S. Military.
Look at Debian, look at the Linux kernel, look at GNOME, this is the
core free software that is making huge advances into making computers
accessible to all, the GNU GPL has been an essential part of that
If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem.
- Eldridge Cleaver
More information about the Pd-dev