
Why I Will Not Sign the Public Domain Manifesto - apgwoz
http://www.fsf.org/blogs/rms/public-domain-manifesto
======
tjic
Ah crap.

I wish this was titled "another inane rant by RMS" - I could have saved myself
clicking on it and reading more of Stallman's quibbling little can't-see-the-
forest-for-trees micropscopic-focus my-way-or-the-highway intractability.

There's a reason that Linux seized the forefront of the free software / open
source movement - it's that Linus, for all his flaws, is still 1,000 x better
with people than RMS.

RMS epitomized many of the worst parts of nerd-personality-damage.

A big breakthrough in my life was realizing that getting people to 95% agree
with me ... and then making a ton of progress - is infinitely preferable to
endlessly arguing over that last 5% and getting stuck without any progress.

What have RMS or the FSF accomplished in the last 10 years?

Precious little.

The movement has left them behind, and they're still at the starting line
arguing about how many periods there are in an ellipses.

~~~
kiba
Well, what do you think is the purpose of the "free software" or "open source"
movement?

Is it to hack open source software, or is it more "idealogical"?

Perhaps what FSF want to accomplish is actually different than what you want
to accomplish?

~~~
crpatino
FSF is all about ideology. More or less it says that, since digital
information can be duplicated at negligible cost, it should be freely
distributed with little or no restriction.

I don't think it is appropriate. We are already undervalued enough for people
to get the fruit of our work for free, no strings attached. My personal take
is that open source licenses should make distribution of anything but source
code illegal. Want binaries? You pay for them and get a regular commercial
license. Don't want to pay _me_ for that? Hire a fellow programmer to build my
code for you and I am ok with that (as long as you do not distribute the
binaries).

------
maxharris
I don't care about what Stallman thinks, and neither should you.

If you're here, it's probably because you are (or want to) running a startup,
and you're doing it to make money. In most instances, Stallman's philosophy is
fundamentally against that, or at least indifferent to it. If you pursue his
ideas seriously and consistently, you will fail in business.

Do you really want that? If your answer is yes, why are you reading hn?

~~~
anigbrowl
I agree. Although I care deeply about this issue and agree with some of his
views, Stallman seems to me like a classic case of someone who who makes the
perfect into the enemy of th good. Every time I read his output I am beset by
the urge to respond by blatantly plagiarizing him.

~~~
maxharris
I don't think that Stallman's ideals are good (let alone perfect!)

~~~
anigbrowl
Oh, I didn't put that very well. I meant that I thought the public domain
manifesto, while far from perfect, is a good idea. RMS appeared to me to be
criticizing it too harshly because it didn't meet his standard of perfection.

However, I prefer not to comment on him as an individual. For one thing, his
accomplishments significantly exceed mine, and for another, I see many similar
personality traits in myself.

------
protomyth
My basic problem is reconciling "To promote the Progress of Science and useful
Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive
Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." with "General Principle 2
repeats the common error that copyright should balance the public interest
with 'protecting and rewarding the author'. This error interferes with proper
judgment of any copyright policy question, since that should be based on the
public interest."

~~~
gjm11
Stallman's written on that before; see
<http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/misinterpreting-copyright.html> .

His position (which, for what it's worth, seems correct to me) is that I.8 of
the US constitution says that the _purpose_ of copyright is simply "to promote
the progress of science and useful arts", and sees "protecting and rewarding
the author" as a means to that end, not as something to be balanced against
it. (Note also that the Constitution doesn't say that there must or should be
copyright; only that Congress is _permitted_ , for the specific purpose
mentioned, to establish copyright.)

If it turned out that copyright actually works against "the progress of
science and useful arts", a believer in "balancing" might think it should stay
anyway, to protect and reward authors. Stallman would not, and the US
Constitution does seem to be on his side.

(I am not claiming, and I don't know whether Stallman would, that copyright
laws that can be shown to impede the progress of science and useful arts would
actually be unconstitutional.)

~~~
ErrantX
_I am not claiming, and I don't know whether Stallman would, that copyright
laws that can be shown to impede the progress of science and useful arts would
actually be unconstitutional_

This is my issue with that entire point. I don't see how current is hampering
arts and science, _really_. Which is a problem because people can turn around
and say so; which works to invalidate the argument.

It's a key point because it's what we need to consider when revising copyright
law properly; but for dismantling the current law it doesn't seem, currently,
a strong argument.

~~~
jacobolus
> _I don't see how current [copyright law?] is hampering arts and science,
> really._

Seriously?

As one example, people who go to prestigious universities with big libraries
can get access to all of the scientific output in the world, while others,
especially in places without good public libraries, can't get access to that
material. If copyright was a more reasonable term, all of that material older
than some date could be digitized and widely distributed. This couldn't but
help science.

As another, a large portion of the current amateur cultural output (youtube
videos, covers of songs, &c.) is currently illegal. But this illegality is
out-of-sync with common understandings of the legitimacy of various uses.

It's absurd to justify people's grandchildren (or unrelated people or
corporations who bought the rights sometime) collecting royalties for the
creative output of 70 years ago with the argument that the original creation
wouldn't have happened without such "incentive".

* * *

As for constitutionality, this is a matter which properly belongs to the
legislature IMO, not the courts. I just wish our legislators were a bit less
beholden to Disney & friends.

~~~
ErrantX
You've got me on the first one...

The second doesn't necessarily seem to be hampering the arts and science
(unless, I suppose, we are saying it hampers _access_ to the arts - which I
might agree with).

------
muhfuhkuh
All of this hoopla over a damned cartoon mouse.

------
Semiapies
This is why divide and conquer can work.

