[pp.int.general] An answer to RMS' critique of the PP.SE political programme

[Egil Moeller]

> Why so late? This has led to many interesting discussions right here,
> and while your input is valuable, there's always a risk of endlessly
> reinventing the wheel around here.
>   
Well, since I've mainly been following the Swedish PP's internal
debates, where this has been a hushed down non-issue. When RMS published
his text, I wrote a sort of hurried blogg-post about it, but no one
seemed to care. A bit later I wrote the text I've linked to now, which
includes an actual proposal for paragraphs to change in a specific law,
which at least got people talking... And it was only when I wanted to
post it to RMS and someone told me he reads the PPI list, that I joined
and sent the text here...
> As rms mentions at the end of his article, almost a year ago someone
> (namely myself) proposed to refine PPI proposal of reducing the
> copyright duration, for instance by adapting said duration to the
> licensing model chosen by the author/artist/developer. (I am referring
> to Jan 8 to Jan 12 discussion on this mailing list.)
> This suggestion seemed to met (some of) rms' expectations and has
> become the official stance of PPfr ever since, though PPse has not
> acknowledged it AFAIK. This idea doesn't seem incompatible with yours,
> btw.
>   
Good to know that PPI and PPFR takes this issue a bit more serious than
PPSE has done, and I'm sorry I joined your debate so late. Have you
tried to take this up with PPSE? What has the reaction been?

The main advantage to my proposal is that it is useful even without a
changed copyright term and that it can be implemented on a national
level w/o breaking any international treaties.

Do you have an archive of the discussion you had, or a summary?

/Egil