[AktiviX-discuss] brief (read: quick) summary of license debate

[mp at fsc.cc]

READY TO MAKE DECISION?:
_______________________

summary of voices raised in connection with choice of license for
wiki.aktivix.org.

- currently used is the mediawiki default:
http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html

- two different version of Creative Commons licenses have been suggested:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/
&
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/

- and also the suggestion to use the GNU _software license_, the GPL, has been
made.

* the problems with the CC licenses are that from the perspective of Freedom, as
in GNU, they make compromises and thereby constrain freedom. the non-commercial
clause even more so.

* the reason for NOT using FDL, but the GPL is that we should treat all
information/bitstreams/ideas in the same terms and the GPL is the original and
fundamentally Free license, - so why not?

as it stands there is an unfinished discussion, it is a good discussion that
could go on forever. considering that also a voice has been raised to keep the
FDL license, it seems reasonably to propose that AktiviX on the 2nd Annual
Gathering in Sheffield Sept. 10-12 decide to continue using the FDL UNLESS
anyone raises serious objections before that.

/mp


/## (comment from summariser: the problem with the particular view of Freedom
that
are at the heart of the GNU philosophy is an all permissible Freedom, which
means NO constraints. This sounds good at first, but upon scrutiny this view of
freedom is somewhat limited, because it poses no limits. yes, you read right :)
- if there are no limitations or boundaries of "freedom to use" then we have
the capitalist society in a nutshell: oil companies are Free to extract what
they need. the necessary boundary of freedom that your free action does not
impinge upon my freedom of action. social organisation of freedom will always
be a negotiation (well, not for the white house...) of different views of
freedom. the GPL allows NASA to fly to Mars using GNU, as well as the U.S.
military to use it in Irag for whatever, and this maybe alright, although the
questions start forming. if we see software as a tool that has two handles, and
we just have to beware of the wrong one, then we can just hope that others will
follow NSA and contribute (link below) good stuff to Free Software that we can
do good with, and good that outweighs their bad. this is one form of
negotiation of freedom. so, we accept that software is just that tool that we
all share and all are embedded in (or at the mercy of), so it is absolutely
imperative that we keep its development and distribution 100% unconstrained for
social, security and ethical reasons.

but what about the use of that software?

is a wiki not *use* of the technology or tool? should we permit off hand all use
of the tool - no actions to be constrained? is that what we want? it does sound
a bit like the Gospel of Free Marketeers: leave it to the invisible hand and
let God sort them out.

this is the reason why I am not sure that the compromises of freedom that some
see inherent in the CC licenses is more of a deprivation of freedom than an
absolute laissez-faire attitude to the _use_ of the tool.

of course the postmodern craze convoluted in such terms as ontology and
epistemology creeps in anywhere, and suggests that all media are converging and
no distinctions are to be made of "informational flows", but it is funny that
this view should take hold within a movement that is so dependant upon
hierarchical layering of protcols to function.

when rms is called a fundamentalist i think: it is good that he is, because it
keeps the *tools* alive; but the problematics arise when the GNU philosophy is
transposed uncritically, instead of translated carefully unto other domains.)
\##