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

[Radosław Nadstawny]

On Fri, 14 May 2010 17:29:31 +0200
Boris Turovskiy <tourovski at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi I.K.,
> > To me this point of view also seems anti-pirate in a certain sense. 
> > Think about what do we stand for fundamentaly. A wording may be 
> > different, but it is basically that people's free access to 
> > information (as long as it is not for commercial purposes) is their 
> > fundamental right.
> 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. 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.
> 
> > And restricting this access is unethical.
> > For example, restricting people's access to a book is unethical. So 
> > why restricting people's access to a source code is fine with you?
> > It is just another kind of information. And AFAIK, PPG treats
> > software in the same way as all the other creations - so why don't
> > you demand the same treatment for it as for the others?
> Not access itself but the possibility of sharing (granting access to 
> others) or modifying of something I already have access to. If a
> writer writes a book and locks it in their drawer, we don't arrive at
> their door saying "Show us the book, you don't have the rights to
> restrict our access to it!"; neither can we force a band to put their
> releases online in uncompressed form if they decide to only release
> them in mp3. 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.

Actually, this is a very good point. I see nothing unethical in
releasing software in binary-only form. What I consider unethical is
forbidding to read this already released code even in it's binary form
(just to find out how it works and what it does) and to freely share it
(original or modified) on noncommercial basis.

I think that current policies of free software are so restrictive (in
that they impose an obligation to share, not only the right to do so)
mainly to compensate for the absence of these freedoms in the law
itself. It's like "we give you these freedoms, but the law doesn't
require anyone to give them too, so if anyone now can take these
freedoms away, we have to take additional measures to prevent this".

> 
> Best regards,
> Boris
> ____________________________________________________
> Pirate Parties International - General Talk
> pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
> http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general