[pp.int.general] Why Free Software misses the point

[Fedor Khod'kov]

Boris Turovskiy <tourovski at gmail.com> writes:
> Here comes the first point, the non-commercial clause - good that you
> pointed it out for me. The Pirate ideas usually make a clear
> distinction between "commercial" and "non-commercial", with most of
> our positions focusing on freedoms in the non-commercial
> area. However, it is explicitly stated in the FSF's description of
> "essential freedoms" that there should not be a difference between
> commercial and non-commercial use and distribution.

Non-commercial area is most obvious case when copyright restrictions is
unacceptable, but not the only area.  It is true what copyright must be
applied only to commercial activities, but this doesn't mean what any
restriction on any commercial activity is justified.  Commerce is a
legitimate activity; if it is restricted in some way, the restriction
must be justified and must not violate human rights.  Copyright also
should not become a tool to suppress business in general or any specific
form of business.  For example, "using unlicensed software" became an
excuse for police to attack independent media in some countries
(including Russia) - see
http://blogs.forbes.com/firewall/2010/04/14/microsoft-denial-on-kyrgyzstan-censorship-conflicts-with-the-facts/
and links in this article.

I'm not sure what "any use of copyrighted works in commercial activities
must be restricted by copyright regardless of any possible consequences
to human rights and freedom" is really the idea what belongs to Pirates.

> And if we applied their position to other works, the hugely popular
> (among pirates, too) CC-BY-NC license would be considered just as
> "bad" or "unfree" as a "all rights reserved" license.

This is not true, actually.  It might be true if FSF supported the idea
what copyright on different kinds of work must be strictly identical,
but as clearly stated in
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/misinterpreting-copyright.html, that is
not the case.  The idea of uniform copyright is purely dogmatic, I don't
know any arguments supporting it.

> In the same way, if a software developer writes a program and releases
> only the compiled version, not the code, it's his right. After all, we
> require that there be a right of sharing, not an obligation to do so.

Not necessary; industry can be regulated to achieve some useful results.
For example, industry can be regulated by copyright (in order to "to
promote the progress of science and the useful arts"); or industry can
be regulated by laws requiring companies who distribute software or
install it on customers' computers to make source code of software
available to customers and third parties which is hired by customers to
check or modify the code, in order to defend the right of computer users
to control their own computers.
-- 
Fedor.