[PD-dev] Political Impropriety

Hans-Christoph Steiner 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:

> ola,
> at least, some reasonable words from some reasonable person.
>> Hola.
>> 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'
> or
> '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,
> sevy

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 mailing list