Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

RMS says Creative Commons Unacceptable

Zonk posted more than 8 years ago | from the baby-with-the-bathwater dept.

GNU is Not Unix 647

Mr A Coward writes "Richard Stallman has stated in an interview that he no longer supports Creative Commons licenses. In the interview carried on LinuxP2P.com, and which is largely about the P2P and DRM issues, Stallman ends by saying: 'I no longer endorse Creative Commons. I cannot endorse Creative Commons as a whole, because some of its licenses are unacceptable.' He suggests instead using the GPL for creative works." The crux of his argument is that, since he disagrees with some of the CC licenses, and people tend to lump them all together, he feels compelled to reject them all. What's your take? Are some Creative Commons licenses worth using, even if others aren't?

cancel ×

647 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

What bunk! (4, Insightful)

Mrs. Grundy (680212) | more than 8 years ago | (#14661327)

I'm sure this won't make me a lot of new friends on /. but there is some serious bunk here and the creative commons complaints is the least of it. Mr. Stallman seems to be metaphor-challenged. While he minces words about the difference between intellectual property and copyright in one sentence, in another he says:

RMS: People have a right to share copies of published works; P2P programs are simply a means to do it more usefully, and that is a good thing.

If we are going to mince words maybe we should start with an honest appraisal of the difference between sharing (as in borrowing a book) and copying. All of us who make a living being creative understand the shortcomings of current copyright legislation and know that we need people to think about creative work in new ways if we are going to take IP law into the 21st century; we know tilting in favor of multi-national corporations at the expense of individuals is a mistake, but we are not going to get anywhere with the type of lazy thinking which asserts things like, "If copyright law forbids people from sharing, copyright law is wrong." I'll take Lawrence Lessig's [lessig.org] ideas over Mr. Stallman's any day.

Re:What bunk! (4, Insightful)

Omnifarious (11933) | more than 8 years ago | (#14661455)

So, please explain to me how you can have a sane system of laws that restrict things like sharing over P2p and don't restrict things like letting a friend read a book. In a digital world, I do not believe this is possible.

So, I would say that in the final analysis Lessig's ideas reduce to Stallman's. They are just more palatable to you because they seem to say something different, and you hold out some forlorn hope that there is a reasonable way to restrict digital copies.

Re:What bunk! (4, Insightful)

FortKnox (169099) | more than 8 years ago | (#14661486)

So, please explain to me how you can have a sane system of laws that restrict things like sharing over P2p and don't restrict things like letting a friend read a book. In a digital world, I do not believe this is possible.

'sharing over P2P' doesn't make sense. When it is over, you have a copy, and I have a copy. You are not 'sharing' your copy, you are creating and giving me a copy.
This isn't rocket science, people!

Re:What bunk! (2, Interesting)

IgnoramusMaximus (692000) | more than 8 years ago | (#14661670)

'sharing over P2P' doesn't make sense. When it is over, you have a copy, and I have a copy

So is the case with the book. When it is over, you have a copy, albait mangled and compressed, in your brain.

Re:What bunk! (2, Insightful)

Omnifarious (11933) | more than 8 years ago | (#14661717)

Uh, huh. So, you have to copy a program from disk into memory in order for it to run. Is that illegal? How about if you have a huge cluster?

Also, tell me how you restrict making a copy without breaking into people's computers or putting police chips in everything? Which is worse, a world in which people can freely copy stuff, or a world in which every single move you make with anything digital is carefully monitored so you can't? There isn't much of an in-between here you know. I you don't have the careful monitoring, people will make copies. They already do, and all the enforcement efforts of RIAA have not made even the tiniest dent in filesharing.

Personally, I don't want the police state.

Giving incentive to the creators of stuff via copyright is growing more and more pointless every day. So, be brave and give up the stupid idea. It won't work. It can't work. Think of something better.

Re:What bunk! (1)

HardCase (14757) | more than 8 years ago | (#14661536)

So, please explain to me how you can have a sane system of laws that restrict things like sharing over P2p and don't restrict things like letting a friend read a book. In a digital world, I do not believe this is possible.

I suspect that the answer to your question is quite apparent to you, but you're really looking to generate a theoretical debate about what form "information" must take to be considered infringing. We don't live in a digital world, we live in a practical world - think practically.

-h-

Re:What bunk! (5, Insightful)

IgnoramusMaximus (692000) | more than 8 years ago | (#14661731)

We don't live in a digital world, we live in a practical world - think practically.

In both cases the thing being "shared" is information. The difference is that in the case of the book, the information is coupled with a physical object and thus causes the confusion in the form of some people's physical-world-coupled simian brains being unable to realize what it is they are sharing. Any "practical" measures to restrict sharing of information (which is what this is all about) will and must lead to totalitarian measures in regards to digital communication equipment i.e. computers and internet. It is not only "practical" but the only way.

Re:What bunk! (1)

Syberghost (10557) | more than 8 years ago | (#14661664)

So, please explain to me how you can have a sane system of laws that restrict things like sharing over P2p and don't restrict things like letting a friend read a book. In a digital world, I do not believe this is possible.

I could use DRM to give you a time-limited copy. Assuming the hardware and OS support DRM.

Re:What bunk! (3, Insightful)

HardCase (14757) | more than 8 years ago | (#14661479)

I'll be your buddy.

RMS has made a cottage industry out of passing his opinions off as fact. He believes that copyright laws are unethical, therefore it is a fact that copyright laws are unethical.

Now maybe in a reality-free zone where everybody works for the common good and nobody takes more than his* fair share, that would be a reasonable thing to pass off as a fact. But Stallman's "facts" are impractial in the real world.

The guy is an idealogue. More power to him for practicing what he preaches, but his "my way or the highway" philosophy really marginalizes any arguments that he presents.

-h-

* the "gender-neutral" "his"

Re:What bunk! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14661676)

He believes that copyright laws are unethical, therefore it is a fact that copyright laws are unethical.

Well yeah, when I believe somethihg I consider it to be a fact. That's what I mean when I say I believe it. When I'm unsure of the truth of something I haven't reached the point of believing it.

But Stallman's "facts" are impractial in the real world.

You believe that so you state it as a fact. Everyone does this. Your point, that he presents things he believes to be true as if they are true, is silly. Yes, I state that as a fact... because I believe it.

Re:What bunk! (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14661684)

It's easy to practice what you preach when you can also live off academic grants.

you, too (4, Insightful)

idlake (850372) | more than 8 years ago | (#14661727)

Now maybe in a reality-free zone where everybody works for the common good and nobody takes more than his* fair share, that would be a reasonable thing to pass off as a fact. But Stallman's "facts" are impractial in the real world.

Human beings have produced great art, science, and engineering for millennia in the absence of copyright protection. The assertion that copyrights and patents have any social or economic merit at all is at best unproven.

So, the ideologues trying to push unproven ideas on the rest of us are people like you, people who make strained arguments that somehow society needs to bear the costs and complexities of IP law.

Go prove your case before you whine about Stallman.

Re:What bunk! (1)

sholden (12227) | more than 8 years ago | (#14661485)

It's not lazy thinking. It's what he believes, and he is up front and honest about it.

Re:What bunk! (1)

stormcoder (564750) | more than 8 years ago | (#14661538)

All of us who make a living being creative understand the shortcomings of current copyright legislation and know that we need people to think about creative work in new ways if we are going to take IP law into the 21st century;

You must mean all the greedy bastards out there. Not all copyrighted works shared on P2P networks are illegally shared. There are quite a few artists out there that only distribute on P2P networks.
IP law? There's no such thing.

Re:What bunk! (1)

Foofoobar (318279) | more than 8 years ago | (#14661644)

Good point. I always say the problem with P2P is that it 'copies' instead of shares. The difference being that if I borrow a book from the library, the library no longer has that book. P2P systems are not 'file sharing' systems but are 'file copying and distribution' systems.

I agree that artists do need to be compensated but at the same time, users should have the right to share. And even furthermore, perhaps even copy A LITTLE (for instance copying for my personal computer, my IPOD, my TIVO, my wifes computer, etc). But unlimited copying of files is perhaps a bit overboard.

The problem is that no one has come up with a solution to solve this universally and so the problem persists.

Lawsuits won't solve this problem. You have to intriduce a new paradigm and model that allows limited copying but unlimited sharing (and zero copying of copies).

Let them eat cake! (0)

MikeFM (12491) | more than 8 years ago | (#14661722)

Without free expression of information all you're managing to do is slow down the rate at which humans, as a species, can create and grow. Anything that stops that sharing without causing more to be shared as a result is a bad concept. The premise of copyright seems to be that by keeping people from sharing we encourage new creation. That is a rather foolish idea that stems from people being used to material goods for which there is a limited supply. Ideas, and the expression of ideas, don't work that way. Rather than running out as they are used they generate more as they are used. If you've ran out of ideas it probably means your dead.

Now the real problem with doing away with copyrights is that while ideas don't run out they can become a dillute asset. People are still greedy, selfish, and shortsighted as a whole and just because they use your ideas or expression of those ideas doesn't mean they will have the foresight to keep you alive, healthy, and happy so that you can keep cranking out the ideas they need and want. They aren't going to seek you out to give you money. On the other hand my experience is that just because they can have your ideas for free doesn't mean they won't pay you money for those ideas if you make it clear that they need too.

What I think Mr. Stallman needs to do if he doesn't want to be shrugged off by most of us that make our living from our ideas is to create a structure by which we can make our ideas available for free but still get money in return. I use the GPL for my work. For doing so he should provide direction for my work, find a market for my work, sell my work, and give me a fair share of the profits from my work. He needs to work with others to create the sort of production company - sort of a record label for free flowing information. He has the connections to set up such an entity where most of us don't. I believe in his concept of free flowing information, perhaps more than he himself does, so let him make it practical for me to follow those beliefs. The vast majority of people out there will buy a product even if it's available for free which is the main reason piracy doesn't put companies like Microsoft out of business. People want the ease of picking something up off a shelf and they want the sensation of going somewhere and buying a shiny box. If prices are kept reasonable and the product easily purchased, in retail outlets, it will be bought rather than taken as a free download.

Say if I write an edutainment program and make it available under the GPL. Why does the FSF not help me with testing, collecting feedback, packaging, and distribtion. They could keep half the money from the sales for financing the program, and other FSF programs, and divide the other half among the programmers of the project. They could even go so far as to take a tithe out of each sale for the programmers of the programming tools used in the development of the project and making sure the developers of those tools got the money. RMS has done a lot for everyone with the creation of the GPL and the many free software projects he's been involved in but if he wants to see his creation really succeed he needs to make it financially viable for us that don't have the resources or disposition to become our own companies - the vast majority of creative types.

are they different? (5, Insightful)

ummit (248909) | more than 8 years ago | (#14661329)

If it's true (as RMS says in the interview) that the various Creative Commons licenses are "more different than similar", and if they differ on issues you care about, then yes, I would have to agree with Stallman that they need to be discussed separately, that you can't make a blanket statement saying either "I support CC licenses" or "I reject CC licenses". If some Creative Commons licenses are worth using and others aren't, it would be best to stop talking about them collectively as "Creative Commons licenses" and instead discuss them under their own names.

Re:are they different? (1)

pahoran (893196) | more than 8 years ago | (#14661405)

Yes, but Stallman doesn't want to discuss them separately. He rejects them ALL. A bit more of the lazy thinking mentioned above, I think.

Re:are they different? (4, Insightful)

Otter (3800) | more than 8 years ago | (#14661598)

To my astonishment, I somewhat agree with Stallman. There are multiple Creative Commons licenses, they're fairly different and people use the term "Creative Commons" to refer only to the most permissive ones. (Look through the stories here, and see how often things are described as "under a Creative Commons license", as though that's meaningful.)

It seems to me that this issue isn't really Creative Commons' fault and could be best handled by enforcing clarity. Stallman, who loves to enforce similar "clarity" about existing words which he has personally redefined to mean only what he says they do, certainly ought to get that. I imagine his hostility is really because their range of licenses includes things that are too restrictive for his taste.

The Solution (4, Funny)

toupsie (88295) | more than 8 years ago | (#14661335)

Call it the GNU\Creative Commons License. Problem solved.

Your web site (0, Offtopic)

McGiraf (196030) | more than 8 years ago | (#14661362)

I must congratulate you on you web site, it is the best one I ever saw!

Re:Your web site (0, Offtopic)

byolinux (535260) | more than 8 years ago | (#14661421)

I'm suing him. He's hacked into my computer and made a carbon copy of all my files. Is this the kind of thing Slashdot has become?!

Re:Your web site (0, Offtopic)

Rude Turnip (49495) | more than 8 years ago | (#14661444)

Yeah, but his taste in barnyard animal pr0n is superb! Oh, wait...

Re:The Solution (4, Funny)

kusanagi374 (776658) | more than 8 years ago | (#14661505)

Yes, and we should call that "the GCC License"... oh wait a sec

Re:The Solution (3, Funny)

nihkee (662341) | more than 8 years ago | (#14661681)

Must...resist...backslash...in...normal...text...

Dude, you're been too much with your beloved Windows.

Shhhh, shhhh.... It'll be okay... (2, Funny)

coupland (160334) | more than 8 years ago | (#14661355)

"As for the music factories--a.k.a. the major record companies--what they want is power. They will never accept P2P sharing as long as it remains a way to escape from their power. For their abuses against the people, they deserve to be abolished, and that should be everyone's goal. "

Hee-hee, he's so cute when he's going all nazi. Don't use the words "producers," "content," or "intellectual property." MP3s are evil. CDs with DRM aren't really CDs, they're "fake CDs" and they're "the face of the enemy." I swear, if he doesn't stop gritting his teeth at the universe he's gonna wear them down to the nub...

Re:Shhhh, shhhh.... It'll be okay... (1)

McGiraf (196030) | more than 8 years ago | (#14661415)

I'm not sure it'll be ok.
RMS always seem crazy at first, but then you wait a few years and realise he was right. It's scares me.

Re:Shhhh, shhhh.... It'll be okay... (1)

null etc. (524767) | more than 8 years ago | (#14661427)

I swear, if he doesn't stop gritting his teeth at the universe he's gonna wear them down to the nub...

RMS has long since lost his teeth... now he has a bloody mash of gums that have become infected by a strain of parasite-induced dementia, which causes him to label any form of content control as fundamentally oppressive to the human rights of freedom.

I recently overheard him stating that once his crusade against DRM is victorious, he's gonna bear his fleet of space warships against ARM (analog rights management.) First on his list is the Surgeon General warning on packs of cigarettes...

Re:Shhhh, shhhh.... It'll be okay... (1)

stinerman (812158) | more than 8 years ago | (#14661733)

Stallman seems to be a hardcore deontologist [wikipedia.org] . In his mind, things are wrong are always wrong, regardless of the consequences of the actions. So when he goes off the proverbial deep end with his rhetoric about MP3s and fake CDs, you must understand how he views them -- as wholly wrong even if they don't really involve much real harm to an end user.

I'm a deontologist as well, but not as hard-core as he is. I rip all my music to FLAC or Vorbis, but I'm not about to take all my mp3s and convert them because they're "evil". I prefer F/OSS software to closed source, but if the closed source counterpart is judged to be better or offers some functionality not otherwise available, I'll still use it.

RMS wants closed source code abolished. I want people to know there is a choice. RMS wants DRMed CDs abolished. I want people to know they exist and the possible consequences of using such CDs.

Is RMS relevant? (4, Insightful)

zerocool^ (112121) | more than 8 years ago | (#14661369)


I think it's time we just start ignoring RMS. Once the national media noticed him about 5-6 years ago, his ego has tipped the scales. He's so far off the deep end that I for one don't want to be associated with his ideas.

It's like we're all saying "Open source is a good thing", and he's now picking up that banner, saying "Unless it's completely open and completely free in every possible sense of the word, it's wrong". That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying "Open source is a good thing".

Re:Is RMS relevant? (3, Insightful)

morcego (260031) | more than 8 years ago | (#14661445)

Answer: No.

I think it's time we just start ignoring RMS.

Long past, if you ask me.

RMS has outlived his usefulness to the FOSS movement. He is, I might add, an obstacle, which can very easily make people move AWAY from FOSS.

RMS, we are all greateful for what you have done in the past, but please shut up.

Re:Is RMS relevant? (1)

byolinux (535260) | more than 8 years ago | (#14661514)

All he's saying is that software should have freedom. What kind of freedoms does your 'Open Source' statement afford us? If I can only see the code, then it's worthless. If I can't run the program, modify it, and redistribute it, with or without my changes, then what's the point?

Please give an example of your 'Open Source' license.

Re:Is RMS relevant? (2, Insightful)

azagthoth (189620) | more than 8 years ago | (#14661582)

It's like we're all saying "Open source is a good thing", and he's now picking up that banner, saying "Unless it's completely open and completely free in every possible sense of the word, it's wrong" That's the same thing he's been saying since the beginning. Remember that the OSS movement came from his FSF. I'm not saying he's right, only that your statement is not based on facts.

Re:Is RMS relevant? (1)

lorien420 (473393) | more than 8 years ago | (#14661715)

Mod this up.

The original is way off base. The Free Software Movement has always been about freedom. By RMS' account, the Linux community was the first one that differentiated itself and didn't want to give back.

Open source is a different idea; it's a development model that is often used with free software in order to encourage collaboration. Having the code available to you is just one of the freedoms necessary for something to be free software.

Re:Is RMS relevant? (4, Funny)

Medievalist (16032) | more than 8 years ago | (#14661637)

I think it's time we just start ignoring RMS.
Uh... OK, you first.

Re:Is RMS relevant? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14661709)

Root Mean Squared is a very important concept.

I sort of agree (4, Interesting)

Omnifarious (11933) | more than 8 years ago | (#14661370)

IMHO, if you're going to have some sort of umbrella for licenses to be put under, it should mean something. Near as I can tell, Creative Commons has no real criteria for deciding whether or not a license is acceptable.

If I read that a license is OSI approved, I know exactly what that means, and what sorts of things I can expect to be able to do and what I can expect to not be able to do.

If I hear that a license is a creative commons license, it tells me nothing. For all I know, it might be "You're allowed to distribute this only if you feel strongly that you have green skin.". They have license that discriminate based on what country you're a citizen of, so I don't see why they won't pick other weird things in the future.

If they want to be taken seriously, they will publish clear criteria for the acceptability of a license.

News Flash! (5, Funny)

Bacon Bits (926911) | more than 8 years ago | (#14661371)

RMS thinks his license is better than everyone else's.

In other news, water is still wet, Microsoft is still a monopoly, and people dislike paying taxes.

My take? (3, Insightful)

heinousjay (683506) | more than 8 years ago | (#14661373)

I stopped listening to him sometime around the GNU/Linux debacle. He doesn't really provide much value to anyone who doesn't want to be hard left.

Don't get me wrong, the man did some great things in bringing forth the Free Software movement, but now it seems like his goal is to destroy everything that doesn't fit his ideals, and that's just as dangerous as what he opposes.

Re:My take? (1)

bblazer (757395) | more than 8 years ago | (#14661576)

I have to totally agree. I think that the zealousness of RMS is turning off a lot of people that could be an asset to the OS cause. I, for one, am getting sick of his "my way or the highway" attitude. He is not the only one with an opinion.

Re:My take? (2, Insightful)

sydb (176695) | more than 8 years ago | (#14661626)

Hard left? Your view of politics is very simplistic. What's leftist about the abolition of laws which restrict the operation of the free market?

I never would have guessed (5, Funny)

0racle (667029) | more than 8 years ago | (#14661375)

He suggests instead using the GPL for creative works.

You mean he's pushing his own ideas as better then someone elses? I'm shocked, SHOCKED!

Stallman slipping? (3, Informative)

tbo (35008) | more than 8 years ago | (#14661383)

Several years ago, I heard Stallman speak at a lecture at my university. He was clearly very smart, and very driven by ideological goals. On top of all that, there was also a hint of that indefinable quality shared by most crazy people. Something about him was not quite right--I got a sense that his grasp on reality was slipping a bit. Maybe this is necessary for a person to make the kind of sacrifices he has, but it's a dangerous balance.

From reading the recent draft of the GPL v3 [slashdot.org] , and the article attached to this story, I get a sense that he's slipped further. For instance, when he spoke at my university, he recognized that the best way to achieve your goals is to have limited, realistic goals, and focus on those. When people asked him about copyright on music or movies, he diplomatically dodged the question and said it was a separate issue from his Free Software philosophy, and he didn't want to address it. In the interview linked in TFA, he outright attacks copyright for these things. The GPL v3's attack on DRM is similar. Stallman has sacrificed the clarity and readibility of the GPL v2 in order to attack patents and DRM.

Now, maybe you agree with Stallman about copyright for music, etc. Even so, you should recognize that that puts you farther outside the mainstream, and it's much harder to change the mainstream when you're 1,000 miles away. If a bunch of Americans write letters to Congress demanding that copyright be abolished*, they will be ignored. If they ask that copyright law take a step back towards the original constitutional idea of limited (in time and power) protection to promote progress in science and the useful arts, that may actually get somewhere. It is vitally important that we sound reasonable.

Stallman has lost his sense of perspective and his grasp on reality. I think it's possible that he is now harmful to the Free Software movement, and the community needs to think about how to deal with this problem. If the community asked him to step down, would he?

* I know Stallman didn't outright call for the abolition of copyright. Still, the changes he wants (the freedom for anyone to distribute any published work) amount to nearly the same thing.

Re:Stallman slipping? (3, Interesting)

jandrese (485) | more than 8 years ago | (#14661531)

Stallman came out to speak at MITRE [mitre.org] a couple of years back. It was right after the paper MITRE published that basically said "yeah, you can use open source software on government probjects, the risks are managable and the cost savings can be great".

So he's in a room with a bunch of mostly older computer engineers in the goverment sector. The first part of his speech goes alright, but then he starts driving off into crazytown. By the end of the speech, he's put on a robe and halo(!!!) and is talking about everyone embracing his ideals. Mind you, this is to a bunch of men mostly wearing suits in a corporate setting. I've never felt so embarrassed to be an open source advocate.

I really appreciate what RMS is trying to do, especially since from his prospective the world is going crazy with the proliferation of DRM technologies and restrictions on what you can and can't do with stuff you own, but nobody is going to take him seriously if he tries to compare himself with Jesus. RMS is his own worst enemy.

Re:Stallman slipping? (4, Insightful)

GigsVT (208848) | more than 8 years ago | (#14661646)

That's who RMS is.

If you wanted someone in a stuffed shirt that business people could relate to, you should have invited Bruce Perens instead.

Re:Stallman slipping? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14661546)

Even though I'm admirer of RMS's work and open source in general, I find this thought intriguing.

For some reason, I'm reminded of Stalin, Mao or even Hitler in this instance. Is someone who so outwardly espouses freedom, sharing and other utopian concepts harboring a dark side?

That's wierd, Stallman/Stalin. Or maybe that should be GNU/Stalin.

Re:Stallman slipping? (2, Insightful)

sydb (176695) | more than 8 years ago | (#14661589)

If the community asked him to step down, would he?

Community: "Please Mr Stallman, stop being yourself."

In other words, step down from what? He does what he does because he is on a mission. People on a mission follow the mission, not the "community".

Re:Stallman slipping? (2, Insightful)

casio282 (468834) | more than 8 years ago | (#14661652)

> * I know Stallman didn't outright call for the abolition of copyright. Still, the changes he wants (the freedom for anyone to distribute any published work) amount to nearly the same thing.

The power of the GPL is completely predicated on the power of copyright. Without copyright, there can be no GPL. RMS's goal isn't to achieve "the freedom for anyone to distribute any published work," but rather to achieve a world in which published works are themselves free -- free to be built upon and creatively refigured, and free to contribute to the common good. To quote Eben Moglen [wikipedia.org] , the goal is to create "a commons, to which anyone may add but from which no one may subtract." [columbia.edu] Hell yes, it's ideological. To me, that's a good thing.

Re:Stallman slipping? (4, Insightful)

McGiraf (196030) | more than 8 years ago | (#14661659)

No, Stallman is not slipping, reality is.

Stallman's an idiot (2, Interesting)

brownja (184673) | more than 8 years ago | (#14661384)

If ever there was a case of
"the perfect being the enemy of the good"
He embodies it.

Re:Stallman's an idiot (2, Informative)

PerlDudeXL (456021) | more than 8 years ago | (#14661619)

Stallman is an ideologist.
Lessig is a jurist/lawyer with real-world/practicable ideas.

Dammit people (3, Funny)

jayhawk88 (160512) | more than 8 years ago | (#14661389)

Someone forgot to give Stallman his medication this week. Who's turn is it?

yeah, blah blah (0, Flamebait)

delong (125205) | more than 8 years ago | (#14661392)

Just one more sign Stallman is a big fat idiot.

Talk about throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Stallman only sees things one of two ways: his way, or no way. No thanks, Dick.

Re:yeah, blah blah (1)

Orrin Bloquy (898571) | more than 8 years ago | (#14661560)

I can't really envision the words "Stallman" and "bathwater" together in a meaningful context.

Re:yeah, blah blah (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14661632)

Yeah and your idol GW bush is any better?

Maybe if you had more than 2 iq points to rub together you would understand what he was saying.

Replace everything where you started frothing at the mouth with "corperations trying to lock up things"

and you will understand.

He just won't support the brand. (4, Insightful)

PCM2 (4486) | more than 8 years ago | (#14661394)

What Stallman is saying sounds, as usual, intellectually consistent. Because some licenses that are called Creative Commons licenses include restrictions that Stallman does not support, Stallman will not endorse the Creative Commons brand. In other words, he will not automatically give you a pat on the back just because you use a Creative Commons license; he wants to know what the terms of the license are first.

Sounds fine to me. I've never been a big supporter of Creative Commons for much the same reason. All Creative Commons seems to be, to me, is a collection of license that someone has paid a lawyer to draft up and then donated that work to the public. You can pick and choose between the licenses and their clauses. It's a generous donation and it's very handy.

Then again, I've never seen how Creative Commons amounts to the "social movement" that people make it out to be. Stallman, whether you agree with him or not, seems devoutly intent on shaking up the foundations of the modern concept of intellectual property. By comparison, Creative Commons licenses seem like little more than tools for helping people navigate the status quo.

Re:He just won't support the brand. (1)

byolinux (535260) | more than 8 years ago | (#14661557)

Completely. You've got the point.

CC as a brand includes some very non-free licenses toward what you can and cannot do with Creative Content. If you have a piece of content that is CC-BY-SA (Attribution/ShareAlike) licensed, you have a freedom that is truly free, maybe add an NC if you'd like to know who's doing what commercially with your content... but anything beyond that isn't really free.

I can see a reason for putting ND on some content, such as a speech, but it's still non-free. RMS wouldn't support non-free licenses... I don't see why this is a surprise at all.

He is a nut job (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14661399)

Frankly, GPL is not my OSS license of choice. BSD and Apache are better and don't have the 4th grade attitude of "you must be nice, or else I'm gonna tell the teacher on you." BS. RMS needs to grow up.

Ignore him and he'll go away. (1)

afeinberg (9848) | more than 8 years ago | (#14661433)

Ok, first off, I'll acknoledge that we owe Mr. Stallman a great debt for his early advocacy of Free Software, the GNU Tools, FSF, GPL, etc. However, at this point he reminds me of an ostrich burying his head in the sand.

Seriously, folks. Why do we keep listening to him if it's obvious all he has to say is the same thing he's been saying for 20 some odd years, and no matter how much progress we make towards what were once his goals, he says "not good enough" and alienates more people.

Some are worth using (4, Insightful)

truthsearch (249536) | more than 8 years ago | (#14661437)

Are some Creative Commons licenses worth using, even if others aren't?

Absolutely! The organization as a whole is trying to better society. I read many of Lawrence Lessig's articles and agree with just about everything he says. His goal is to provide options. A full range of options. Pick the ones that suit your needs and ignore the rest.

After all, isn't that what we do with our Linux systems? We pick the distro and packages we want and ignore the rest. If you don't like OpenOffice it doesn't mean you shouldn't use Linux! Just don't use the parts you don't like!

holy crap (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14661438)

Is anything good enough for him?

I don't think this concerns him. (1, Interesting)

Spy der Mann (805235) | more than 8 years ago | (#14661442)

Stallman belongs to the software-should-be-free area.
Creative Commons is for literature and other arts, way beyond his scope.

Besides, he said that he disagrees, not that he's going to do something about it, right? So, why should we worry about what he said?

Re:I don't think this concerns him. (1)

sydb (176695) | more than 8 years ago | (#14661662)

Quick, everyone in their pigeon holes, Spiderman has spoken!

Personal appearance? (3, Interesting)

Chemisor (97276) | more than 8 years ago | (#14661447)

I can't help but wonder if people would take Stallman a bit more seriously if he shaved and got a haircut. His appearance might then sufficiently approach the norm to prevent the immediate impression most people would receive upon seeing him: namely that he's an overaged hippie out of his time, out of his place, and out of his mind.

Re:Personal appearance? (2, Funny)

ErichTheWebGuy (745925) | more than 8 years ago | (#14661520)

At the very least, a shower would not hurt his chances at all.

My take is people can do what they want (4, Insightful)

winkydink (650484) | more than 8 years ago | (#14661450)

If I write something, I get to pick the license. If Stallman doesn't like it, I'll sleep just fine at night and will have no problems looking at myself in the mirror.

What an extremist (2, Insightful)

MikeRT (947531) | more than 8 years ago | (#14661464)

Stallman is the Pat Robertson of the open source movement. Millions of reasonable people, shouted down in the public by a loud-mouthed, wild-eyed zealot who has gone off the deep end and provides fodders for their enemies. Like Robertson, he lives off his glory days accomplishments, while continuing to have an eery sway over many of the new generation who are in fact much better than him. Thank you for writing Emacs, GCC, etc., but the new generation has come along and really moved that work forward and then some, and let's not forget the fact that Apache, Mozilla and others exist independently of his work.

Thank you for your contributions, but you're not relevant anymore to the degree you aspire to be. IMO, the real voice of reason on this issue is Linus Torvalds with his "we are not crusaders" mentality that is more libertarian than left-liberal.

Re:What an extremist (2, Insightful)

LordKazan (558383) | more than 8 years ago | (#14661521)

I just undid my moderations in this thread to reply to your post

"that is more libertarian than left-liberal."

Anyone who uses the term "left-liberal" makes themself look like an idiot. Linus is no Libertarian (Big-L - as in the neoliberals/anarcho-capitalists who pretend to be libertarians) and RMS is no "left-liberal" as you attempt to stereotype it.

Linus is a smart man and Stallman has gone off the deep end. Keep your political name calling out of it.

Re:What an extremist (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14661660)

you're the extremist.

And just because he isn't a libertarian doesn't mean he's an idiot. Libertarians are people who took a lot of philosophy classes as undergrads and still think they can derive a good world view from first premises. Other people, who might have taken more science than philosophy, try to use a more scientific/engineering method to build their world view (whatever works, ask questions later), and end up liberal.

grow up (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14661701)

you're not relevant anymore to the degree you aspire to be.

What's the point of this attack? "Thanks, shut up" ??

I may not agree with what he says, but I want to hear what he has to say (especially given his past contributions).

Smoke and Mirrors (1)

coolgeek (140561) | more than 8 years ago | (#14661466)

This is part of a carefully planned PR campaign to distract people from the "real" issue confronting the FSF right now -- it's most visible advocate, Linus Torvalds, has removed his endorsement from GPL 3.

GPLv3 probably won't be used in BusyBox. (5, Interesting)

landley (9786) | more than 8 years ago | (#14661471)

I read the draft and found a section that would prevent busybox from using GPLv3. (It's the second coming of the BSD advertising clause: each busybox binary would have to contain GPL boilerplate text in the binary itself, and we're trying for small binary size on embedded systems. In GPL2, the advertising clause was optional. In GPL3 it isn't. That's a fatal flaw for us.)

I tried to comment through their web page, but it doesn't work with Konqueror. I sent a comment via their email system, but it was bounced by their robot. (The subject text, "Concerns about gpl3 and busybox", doesn't appear in the GPL draft document, this has not been seen by a human nor will it ever be. Try jumping through the hoop again.)

It was about this time I decided I really don't care enough about placating Stallman. Sticking with v2 is just fine with me, and his opinion about creative commons is irrelevant as well. At this point, I consider Stallman irrelevant, and GPLv3 just another incompatible license fragmenting the open source userbase.

A pity, really...

Pope Stallman Rejects Another Herasy (3, Insightful)

Cr0w T. Trollbot (848674) | more than 8 years ago | (#14661481)

My take is the same it's always been: Stallman's view of open source is that of a rigid, impractical ideologue far more concerened with being ideologically pure than in getting things done, that his "My Way or the Highway" attitude hurts the open source movement far more than it helps it, and that there's a reason extremist open source zelotry is called "Stallmanism."

There are many times when "Screw you guys, I'm going home" is a valid response, but Stallman has done it so many times, about so many Open Source projects that don't adhere to Pope Stallman's ex cathedra Encyclical on The True and Only GPL that it's lost all meaning. Yeah, RMS, we've figured out nothing that you haven't personally blessed is pure and holy enough for you. Next question.

Perhaps his most impressive feat is making Eric Raymond look reasonable by comparison...

Crow T. Trollbot

It's a real problem (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14661482)

The CC licenses are not upfront about what terms they contain and their names are deceptive. For example the sampling+ license might as well be a completely commercial 'no rights' license, since all it permits would be allowed by fair use anyways.

This has clearly caused confusion, for example the freesounds project claims to be making freely available sound samples... A good goal indeed, but they have chosen the sampling+ license, thus making their samples not free at all. (This is not only been noticed by RMS, I found this discussion: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/11/msg00 287.html [debian.org] )

Sampling+ isn't the first example of this... For example CC created a CC-wiki license which allows website operators to take attribution from creators. It's not bad if you're upfront about it, but they werent... WORSE, they went and snuck these terms into CC-BY-SA-2.1 without comment or even updating the 'human readable' version of the license.

GPL is not right for everything (5, Insightful)

samuel4242 (630369) | more than 8 years ago | (#14661489)

I like the GPL and use it for software, but it's just not right for things like text. For instance, I can use my GPL-given right to revise and extend Richard Stallman's text to read:

I love the Creative Commons. I think the Creative Commons is great as a whole, because some of its licenses are not unacceptable. In fact, I want Larry Lessig to have my baby. Wait that's not feasible.
(Changes in bold .)
What's right for software is not right for matters of opinion or fact. The distinction between sources and binaries don't matter here and actually confuse the right decisions. Nor is there any reason to believe that someone would get anything out of the ability to revise and extend anyone else's words. Okay, it might make sense for a collaborative manual, but I think there are many cases where the right leads to the trouble we're seeing with the clever editors of the Wikipedia.

Re:GPL is not right for everything (2, Insightful)

Elwood P Dowd (16933) | more than 8 years ago | (#14661649)

Are you saying that your insertions into RMS's text should be prohibited by law and you should be prosecuted for above comment?

Of course you can write that. What is your problem?

Bah! What FUD! Here is what Stallman ALSO says: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14661492)

"Some Creative Commons licenses are free licenses; most permit at least noncommercial verbatim copying. But some, such as the Sampling Licenses and Developing Countries Licenses, don't even permit that, which makes them unacceptable to use for any kind of work. All these licenses have in common is a label, but people regularly mistake that common label for something substantial. "

So while Stallman does decline to endorse Creative Commons as a whole because he doesn't like some of their licenses, he clearly states that some of them are free licenses, and thus just fine. If you want to CC your work, and also stay in Stallman's good graces, you have no problem doing so. This /. submission is FUD designed to stir up anti-Stallman rhetoric.

Twisted Mentality (1)

Reality Master 101 (179095) | more than 8 years ago | (#14661500)

I no longer endorse Creative Commons. I cannot endorse Creative Commons as a whole, because some of its licenses are unacceptable.

I wonder if he would agree with, "I no longer endorse Free Software. I cannot endorse Free Software as a shole, because some of its licenses are unacceptable."

Of course, he would never say that, because he would say, "well, any license I disagree with is by definition not Free Software". Well, if the issue is confusion as he claims, there are lots of licenses that people think of as "free" that he would think really aren't. So by his own reasoning, if there is any confusion by people, then one should immediately throw out all babies with all bathwater.

Stallman scratches his balls... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14661502)

I once saw Richard Stallman speak. Over two hours he CONSTANTLY scratched his balls in front of 300+ attendees.

All I could think of when I read this story was, "Yup, still scratching his balls....intellectually and otherwise...."

Re:Stallman scratches his balls... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14661651)

You'd scratch your balls too if you had a bad case of crotch rott. Please remember, the GNU goat logo is no mere accident. RMS took his pet goat "billy" to the prom as a lad. Crys of "baaaaa! bAaaAAAAAA!" and "yeah! like that bitch! who's your daddy?! BAAAAAAAA! BAAAAAA!" could be heard from the backseat of the rented stretch limo...

Creative licensing should be a broad church (2, Insightful)

e6003 (552415) | more than 8 years ago | (#14661507)

Given that CC tries to create analogous licenses for non-software to those that already exist for software (sharealike == GPL, attribution required == BSD) I would say RMS is entitled to his opinion but I respectfully disagree. We know RMS disapproves of the BSD license and prefers the GPL, on account of maintaining the freedom of the software - fine, his opinion given freely. He doesn't seem to explicitly say so, but does he disapprove of the CC attribution license? His problem seems to be one of terms and definitions - not all CC licenses are free it's true, but this sounds more like a small marketing problem for the folks behind CC, rather like the perennial "open source" v. "free software" debate (neither term truly captures the meaning of GPL-like licenses). He does note that the GPL is unsuited, in his opinion, to a book or printed work and I'm struggling to see how it can be applied to other artistic works: do any other class of works (baking recipes being the only example I can think of right now, or maybe the exact colour combinations and brush techniques used in a painting?) have the distinction between human-readable/machine unreadable and human unreadable/machine readable representations of the same work? The GPL is all about ensuring software stays human readable, which is fine, but this isn't the problem with other types of creative work - the problem there is how to legally maintain one's right to a monopoly on the distribution of the work as a whole whilst also allowing others to use substantial portions to build their own works. Let people choose the license they want, is my opinion.

Stallman and change (1)

sphealey (2855) | more than 8 years ago | (#14661508)

After the DMCA was passed, the Sonny Bono Act upheld, and the The SCO Group lawsuit was filed, I realized that I had been wrong in my opinion of RMS, and that what had appeared to me to be fanaticism was in fact a very clear appreciate of reality. Progress depends on unreasonable men and all that.

However, that is not to say that a fanatic who has had a clear and correct vision cannot later go over a cliff, and in the last year or so that does seem to me where RMS is headed.

sph

GPL?? (1)

WWWWolf (2428) | more than 8 years ago | (#14661544)

Uh... I've heard a lot of people saying "Don't use GPL for artistic works". The terminology already makes my head hurt. What exactly is the "source code" for an image file? A PNG file, or an .xcf.gz file, perhaps? Is compressing a PNG image to JPEG analogous to compilation of source code, so I'd have to distribute a corresponding PNG file with each JPEG file - or perhaps is it considered making a derivative work, good heavens? Do I need to add a prominent notice of my change if I gamma-correct someone's GPLed photograph?

Okay, those aren't realistic headaches, but if we start really nitpicking on the details, those might be some very important points in discussions.

Sounds like... (1)

TedTschopp (244839) | more than 8 years ago | (#14661547)

Baby + Bathwater = Splash + Cry....

Creative Commons Problems (2, Insightful)

GigsVT (208848) | more than 8 years ago | (#14661559)

Funny I was just discussing this with a coworker today.

I agree completely with RMS. The Creative Commons licenses are not something that should be lumped together.

They also have several legal problems. Because there are 10 different possibilities for CC license combinations, it's difficult to determine whether all 10 are enforcable or not. The process for vetting even one license is hard enough, much less 10 distinct licenses.

The other is the "no commercial use" licenses. I think these would work fine for a work where the ownership is tightly controlled, but for a collaborative work where no one can authorize license changes, it raises an enforcability question.

If you were to sue someone for infringement, you'd generally sue them for the monetary damages caused by their misuse of your work. If it's impossible for anyone to commercially exploit the work, there's no way there could be any damages. You therefore really have nothing to sue for, and no way to enforce.

For tightly held works, you can claim that you have the ability to license the work under another license if you desire, and therefore there is a commercial potential, and a potential for monetary damages. For works with tainted ownership (say 100 contributers, some dead, many with no contact information), it would be hard to argue that anyone anywhere could ever commercially exploit the project, and there's no basis for claiming damages.

Re:Creative Commons Problems (1)

Tankko (911999) | more than 8 years ago | (#14661635)

>>If you were to sue someone for infringement, you'd generally sue them for the monetary damages caused by their misuse of your work. If it's impossible for anyone to commercially exploit the work, there's no way there could be any damages. You therefore really have nothing to sue for, and no way to enforce.

Ouch. Clearly you never went to law school. I, on the other hand, have watch several TV shows where people went to Law School.

But, joking aside, I have worked in several companies that dealt with IP issues all day and your statement is not completely true.

Damages to your work isn't just about money, it's also about the loss of "good will" for your IP. Just because you don't make any money off of my CC license thingy, doesn't mean that you can't destroy it's value in ways beyond just $'s.

Uh.. yeah (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14661611)

Like Stallman is one to talk. Isn't his GFDL the one that was actually rejected as a free license by multiple accredation groups?

I totally agree. (1)

Elwood P Dowd (16933) | more than 8 years ago | (#14661612)

There isn't a current Creative Commons license that fits my needs. I would like one with all the qualities of the GPL that I like, but none suffice.

ShareAlike-1.0 worked, but now it's somewhat defunct. Flickr doesn't have it, for example. There's no current attribution-less license. They said that was due to lack of demand, based on lack of web-hits to their no-attrib licenses. What the fuck ever? They apparently have no interest in which licenses are most functional for encouraging a "creative commons". Nothing with a recent CC license can be used in GPL projects, because you'd have to require attribution, which is a restriction in excess of the GPL.

And they've got these sampling licenses that are so convoluted and restrictive that it can hardly be considered a contribution to public culture. To my reading, the sampling license says, "We'll allow what should already be considered fair use. Ok, some of what should be considered fair use."

I no longer endorse RMS (2)

wastedbrains (588579) | more than 8 years ago | (#14661617)

Since I dont agree with every opinion of RMS, while i do agree with some of them, I have decided that I can no longer endorse RMS. People tend to lump many of his opinions together, some of which are unacceptable, I can't respect any of his opinions anymore.
Seriously this is crap this guy has gone a bit over the top on many things and doesnt seem to have any idea of balance. I think many things about CC is great and it has already help a lot of interesting works to be produced that otherwise could not have been legally allowed.

Blanket dismissal? (1)

ursabear (818651) | more than 8 years ago | (#14661631)

I like the GPL as well. In addition, I rather like most of the Creative Commons licenses. The CC licenses grant different levels of licensure that makes (in my opinion) more creative works available to a broader section of the world (business, personal, for-profit, etc.).

One example that comes to mind is the license that allows free use, but not re-sale. Yet another offers unfettered use, but attribution is required. The list goes on. This type of flexibility is much more conducive to the sharing of things like media.

I don't think that dismissal of all CC licenses (when one disagrees with only a portion of them) is appropriate.

Creative Commons Info [wikipedia.org]

Egos are starting to show (1)

slashname3 (739398) | more than 8 years ago | (#14661638)

Stallman ends by saying: 'I no longer endorse Creative Commons. I cannot endorse Creative Commons as a whole, because some of its licenses are unacceptable.

Just whip them out on the table and get the ruler. Let's settle this once and for all and find out who's is longer.

Not helping the cause (2, Funny)

kponto (821962) | more than 8 years ago | (#14661642)

I agree with him on so many points, but goddamn it, every time he opens his mouth I have this overwhelming urge to go buy a rootkit CD.

Baby, Bathwater, Who Needs 'em? (1)

elmegil (12001) | more than 8 years ago | (#14661643)

The crux of his argument is that, since he disagrees with some of the CC licenses, and people tend to lump them all together, he feels compelled to reject them all.

Anyone who is surprised at such a dogmatic, hard line response from RMS hasn't been paying attention.

Not all DRM is bad (1)

chill (34294) | more than 8 years ago | (#14661657)

I helped convert an automotive electronics manufacturing facility from using paper CAD drawings and documentation to all electronic. DRM was needed to not only ensure that computers/people on the manufacturing line could not view -- accidentally or deliberately -- non-production documents. We needed an iron clad way of making sure that the document being shown accurately reflected the product being produced at that time. DRM was one aspect of the solution because it allowed us to manage which user accounts and which terminals were able to view which drawings and when. Absolutely critical for making sure everyone is on the same revision of the product.

Corporate documents such as engineering drawings, notes and descriptions are NOT public material. They are private, limited distribution material that need to be controlled. "Document control" is an aspect of ISO-9000 series evaluation and certification. When those documents are electronic, control means DRM.

This is not wrong, RMS is just lumping all DRM together and that is a mistake.

  -Charles

Bizarre Read. Nothing unexpected, really. (2, Insightful)

digital photo (635872) | more than 8 years ago | (#14661669)

Reading the article and seeing the responses to the questions was very much like listening to the senate hearings. Ie, very clear answers when the question is aligned with the agenda or beliefs of the person being interviewed/questioned, but very bluntly vague when not in line.

What gets me is that RMS notes that people, in general, lump all of the CC licenses as one entity. He notes that they need to be addressed seperately.

Having said that, RMS is lucid in his responses. I think what gets peoples' goats about RMS is that he is basically unwavering and uncompromising when it comes to his ideals. This has and always will be the case.

My only wish from the article would have been RMS clarifying what portions of the CC Licensing system he considers to be acceptable and what parts he doesn't. Wholesale dismissal of the CC licenses is like getting a paper back with a big fat "F/0" and a note at the bottom saying "Do better next time", without any indication on the paper of what was wrong. (Bad experience with some college professors.

Why gets me is why people keep feeling surprised or shocked when RMS restates his ideals and views: free as in freedom, complete freedom, no restrictions. Yes, it's a hard left. Yes, it's idealistic. Yes, it would cripple companies and businesses that depend on the restriction of information-based goods(music, movies,etc).

But he does have a point. 100 years from now, how will we access DRM'd content that should have gone public domain? How will we read ebooks that can't be readliy converted to other formats? Same with encrypted and locked music, movies, etc?

Personally, he sounds alot like a cross between a hippie, priest, and lawyer, no offense meant to the hippie, priest, or lawyer. But just because he sounds like that, doesn't mean he isn't onto something. It's just not very palatable.

Not quite as bonkers as quoted - yet. (1)

cruachan (113813) | more than 8 years ago | (#14661691)

If you look at the article he actually says some of the CC licences are unacceptable and the he himself finds himself "constrained to reject Creative Commons entirely". That's not quite as meglamanically delusional as quoted as he obviously can still, to some degree, distinguish between speaking for himself and as self-appointed representative of society. However one is left with the strong impression he's well down the road to prancing around in a wig and declaring "L'etat, c'est moi".

The man has a point (3, Insightful)

Hairy1 (180056) | more than 8 years ago | (#14661706)

If it were anyone else they could be safely ignored, but RMS brought us the GPL, and it was through his uncomprimising commitment to his vision that we have the movement of Open Source today. Yes people - Open Source, he is one of the fathers of Open Source even if he has disowned his own child. The point is that the man is uncomprimising to the point of being irrational.

But is he - in this instance - being irrational? Well, the creative commons typically used by Flickr, is simply a means of easily defining the rights you are providing. It can mean a number of things, and I think he has a point - that its confusing; you have to read the rights for every bit of work, rather than being able to trust that a creative commons mark means you have certain rights.

I still wouldn't use the GPL for writing or music because the GPL has clauses specifically aimed at software. There is no "source code" for music, and no obligation to distribute the score of the music along with the audio recordings for example. However, the creative commons is a diluted concept if you don't gauranttee certain rights to people, and they have to dig to see what their rights actually are.

Stallmans problem isn't one of intellect as such, but rather poor communication. He communicates in a uncomprimising and arrogant way; his way or the highway; and is unwilling to be part of a bigger team that he has no direct control over. That is why Open Source came about - we escaped the limits of Stallmans retoric.

Stallman still doesn't get Open Source I think - The Hurd being an example more of Cathedral style than Bazzar style development. Open Source has overtaken him for a reason, and that reason is a positive feedback cycle generated by a community of willing participants.

The big difference between open source and free software is the uncomprimising ideological dogma of Stallman. Free Software was about the Stallmans dictatorship; his word was law in that universe. Open Source on the other hand starts with the principles of Free Software, but does not insist the developers have the same ideological passions as Stallman.

That said, Open Source has not diluted the principle (as the Creative Commoms may have) by retaining a clear statement about what is and is not Open Source.

The proper question is... (1)

joshmathis (15461) | more than 8 years ago | (#14661707)

Are some Creative Commons licenses worth using, even if others aren't?

The proper question is, "Are some Creative Commons licenses worth using, even if one ideological blowhard says they aren't?"

Or even, "Is anything worth using, even if someone else doesn't like that particular thing?"

The answer to both is "yes". If a certain license fits your creative purpose and moral stand, then, by all means, use it.

Minor Nitpick (1)

Shadow Of The Sun (951477) | more than 8 years ago | (#14661712)

The iTunes Music Store distributes AAC files, not MP3s.

However, I didn't think that AAC was encumbered by patents. Apparently, it is [vialicensing.com] .

Wrong? (1)

LainTouko (926420) | more than 8 years ago | (#14661724)

So as many posts have pointed out, he's crazy, he's an idiot, etc. But if this is the case, then why does nobody ever point out where he's wrong? Where are the errors in logic or fact? Anyone?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?