Subject: Re: Franklin Street Statement and Free Network Services
From: "Dave Crossland" <dave@lab6.com>
Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2008 16:51:46 +0100

2008/8/31 MJ Ray <mjr@phonecoop.coop>:
>
>> In the early "Emacs commune" days RMS decided it was unethical to
>> force people to publish their changes, which is why the GPL doesn't
>> (no link, I cuss printed books, I believe I read this in 'Free For
>> All' or 'Rebel Code').
>
> I didn't find it in "Rebel Code".  I don't have "Free For All" here.

Ah, it was Free As In Freedom:

"Looking back, Stallman says the GPL compromise was fueled by his own
dissatisfaction with the Big Brother aspect of the original Emacs
Commune social contract. As much as he liked peering into other
hackers' systems, the knowledge that some future source-code
maintainer might use that power to ill effect forced him to temper the
GPL.

"It was wrong to require people to publish all changes," says
Stallman. "It was wrong to require them to be sent to one privileged
developer. That kind of centralization and privilege for one was not
consistent with a society in which all had equal rights."

- http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Free_as_in_Freedom/Chapter_9

> I last posted the links between the tests and DFSG in
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2008/08/msg00123.html

Thanks! :-)

> The cost of publication is limited to the number of potential users,
> but that means you can't use Affero GPLv3 software for a public
> service unless you're prepared to pay for an unlimited number of
> copies.

Doesn't Bittorrent mitigate these costs?

> There's a bit of debate whether you can publish once to some free
> hosting service and carry on using it even if the free hosting service
> has gone down, but that's not obviously allowed,

But do you think publishing once to a free hosting service and carry
on using it while the free hosting service is up is allowed?

> the utter nonsense that a licence can "ensure
> cooperation" when cooperation as I understand it is necessarily
> autonomous and voluntary as basic principles.
> http://www.ica.coop/coop/principles.html

Does the GPL ensure co-operation for traditionally distributed software?

I think so.

> Now that FSF has tried to misrepresent cooperation, I see it is moving
> on to back a campaign called autonomo.us which seems to be a handful
> of people from the usual famous non-autonomous hierarchical
> organisations.

The about page lists the organisational affiliations as Novell, OKFN,
FSF, SFLC, CC, CivicActions, GNOME Foundation. But this is a handful
of people, and their affiliations seem totally secondary.

What autonomous heterarchical organisations do you have in mind that
may have members interested in joining that group?

> Do those people have some experience of autonomous
> action which has been hereto hidden from view?  Are we going to get
> the pain of watching them learn from well-funded mistakes?

None of them seem like microserf cubical dwellers to me;

> seems fine to me.

Great :-)

-- 
Regards,
Dave