Underfunding or why I am not interested

[Aaron Wolf]

Hi Anatoly,

I just mean freedom in general. Someone who says, "AGPL restricts people's
freedom to choose their license terms for derivates" is correct objectively.

Some people think that is an acceptable restriction because the AGPL is
adequately free otherwise, and that the particular freedom of derivative
license choice isn't important. Nobody thinks it *isn't* a freedom at all.

Now, if you think the AGPL restrictions (they *are* restrictions) are
*unacceptable*, then you *must* take the position that proprietary
restrictions are *also* unacceptable -- *if* you both (A) want to argue from
a principled freedom-focused reasoning and (B) don't want to be a total
hypocrite.

There are still a couple ways to argue against AGPL restrictions
*while*accepting proprietary restrictions and *not
*be hypocritical:

One is pragmatic: you argue that proprietary may be bad for freedom, but
not fighting against it is simply a better tactic for success of the Free
Software.

The other position is you don't mind proprietary at all, don't care that it
is non-free, and the reason you oppose AGPL are not about freedom because
you don't think freedom is the goal.

So we're both talking about freedom here, and we agree what it is.
Proprietary software restricts freedoms. AGPL restricts a very particular
freedom. Advocates who support AGPL and who do so from a freedom-focused
position believe that the restriction is net good for freedom overall. You
don't have to agree. We are still talking about the same thing with the
same words. We don't need to redefine anything.

Respectfully,
Aaron

--
Aaron Wolf
wolftune.com


On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 1:17 AM, anatoly techtonik <techtonik at gmail.com>wrote:

> On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 11:56 AM, Aaron Wolf <wolftune at gmail.com> wrote:
> > (which should be perfectly fine to someone who favors freedom, because
> you
> > don't want anything to be proprietary anyway, and if you think someone
> > should have the right to be proprietary you must also logically accept
> the
> > right to be copyleft)
>
> What I don't like in copyleft discussions is that everybody is using the
> word
> "freedom" to their own advantage, so while reading, you should be very
> attentive
> about the context. For the purpose of fruitful discussion and
> clarifying positions exactly, I propose to agree upon terminology first and
> introduce the word GNUFreedom. I expect you to propose some word for
> alternative "freedom" that I expressed in my description of it.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sfconservancy.org/pipermail/npo-accounting/attachments/20140223/96c72ea0/attachment.html>