
The FSF Allows No Derivatives, and That's a Mistake - kumaranvpl
https://onpon4.github.io/other/fsf-no-derivatives/
======
emn13
There's a certain smell of hypocrisy in the FSF publishing these without
allowing derivatives. So I was reading this article kind of wanting for it to
be convincing. But the argumentation is pretty weak - that's being nice, it's
essentially absent. The only substantive argument suggests the FSF gospel
could be spread much further if derivatives could literally copy - I doubt it.

Nobody is preventing you from normal critique and commentary, so "no
derivatives" isn't actually as restrictive as he implies; nor does "no
derivatives" mean "no derivative ideas". It just means the actual, literal
text. And when it comes to political speech (which this is), fair use is going
to carve large exemptions anyhow - at least, to any derivative worth having
(see: the four factor test).

So yeah. Smells a little hypocritical to disallow derivatives. But this
article sure doesn't convince me it matters at all.

~~~
ue_
I see no hypocrisy at all. The FSF campaigns for software freedom, not
necessarily for freedom with regard to works of art. Whether software is a
work of art or not is irrelevant. I'm all for public domain with works of art,
but it's simply not a battle the FSF has chosen to fight.

Stallman himself has said that he has no problem with NoDerivs on his own
work, or other people's work. This is why his website is mostly a "verbatim
distribution is allowed in any form..." or something like that.

I see no issue here at all, and I think it's quite wrong for the author to
attack the FSF over this, espeically when there are other things one could
complain about (such as linking to MELPA not being allowed on the Emacs
mailing list because MELPA d(id|oes)n't have the license for their JS
specified as the FSF wants it.

I don't mean to criticise the FSF, they're a very good organisation in my eyes
and I hope they continue doing what they do.

~~~
emn13
I don't disagree.

It looks suspicious (the ND license). If you will: it's no noxious odor; it's
a faint whiff.

But the article doesn't uncover anything that backs up this superficial unease
with something solid.

------
SloopJon
Although I think the author fairly summarizes the Stallman/FSF position on
NoDerivs, here are a couple of quotes from gnu.org for background (presumably
fair use, NoDerivs notwithstanding):

"Works that express someone's opinion—memoirs, editorials, and so on—serve a
fundamentally different purpose than works for practical use like software and
documentation. Because of this, we expect them to provide recipients with a
different set of permissions: just the permission to copy and distribute the
work verbatim."

[https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-
list.en.html#OpinionLic...](https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-
list.en.html#OpinionLicenses)

"The second class of work is works whose purpose is to say what certain people
think. ... To modify them is to misrepresent the authors; so modifying these
works is not a socially useful activity."

[https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/copyright-and-
globalization.h...](https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/copyright-and-
globalization.html#opinions) (excerpted from the book under discussion, _Free
Software, Free Society_ )

Edit: the second quote is from the book, not first.

------
phkahler
>> Perhaps simple edits can get rid of long stretches of silence or other
blemishes that distract viewers or make the video seem boring. Perhaps mixing
together pieces from several videos of the same basic speech delivered can
make the video better, more fun to watch, etc. Perhaps one clip from the
speech is perfect for a big mash-up of several clips, and this spreads the
message the speaker was conveying better.

Perhaps the author should provide a specific example of something they want to
do but are not allowed. Then a meaningful discussion might be possible.

------
cure
The title of this post "The FSF Allows No Derivatives, and That's a Mistake"
is misleading.

I would suggest something more like "The FSF publishes a book for which no
derivative works are permitted".

------
nabla9
It should be obvious to everyone that you can't make derivatives of writings
of others works of opinion. Opinions and translations should be accepted by
the author.

You can quote and refer to opinion articles of others, but you don't change or
improve them.

~~~
yarrel
If you change someone else's words, they are no longer their words.

Most licenses require modified versions to be marked as such. So
misrepresenting a modified version of, say, the GNU Manifesto as Stallman's
original wouldn't be allowed by the license.

~~~
nabla9
There is no reason for anyone take GNU manfiesto and modify it unless thy want
to ride on Stallman's opinon.

If someone can't write their own manifesto without copy pasting, they probably
should not write manifesto. There is no value or reason to modify opinion
works.

~~~
huxley
Sorry but that's not true, there are plenty of reasons to do so, in particular
to provide context, commentary and explanation.

When someone annotates a text, they are modifying it. It's called glossing, it
has a long and academically valuable history.

When Martin Gardner created the "Annotated Alice", he took an existing work by
Lewis Carroll and added his explanations and commentary. This was incredibly
useful and just the sort of thing that the FSF policy prohibits.

As time passes this sort of glossing will only become more valuable. Jeez,
even the FSF has had to add footnotes to the GNU Manifesto because of
terminological changes and to clear up confusions (and they should add more,
pretty much only greybeards like me can remember some of the hardware and
protocols he names in the manifesto)

To allow the FSF to control contextualization of the GNU Manifesto is against
the ideals of the manifesto itself, to quote RMS:

"'Control over the use of one's ideas' really constitutes control over other
people's lives; and it is usually used to make their lives more difficult."

~~~
nabla9
>This was incredibly useful and just the sort of thing that the FSF policy
prohibits.

No. FSF policy is for works of opinion.

No Derivatives licenses do not prevent people from making fair uses.

------
serge2k
If I'm producing a work of opinion I don't want people to be able to modify it
and chop it up and produce something different with my name on it.

The policy seems reasonable.

------
jack9
> Translation is one possible reason mentioned in that very license

That can (and usually does) change the content. Sigh.

