rms vs creative commons @ copyright2005
Somewhere I’ve read that waiting for the interesting post too gestate into something truly gem-like usually means you won’t post about it. So, I was “planning to write a longer post later” (ha! I’ve heard that before); instead I’ll just jot down some thoughts about the copyright2005 conference I attended last night in Montreal, where Richard Stallman gave the keynote, followed by a pannel discussion with rms, russell mcormond of digital copyright canada, and Marcus Bornfreund of Creative Commons Canada, and a few others.
RMS’s speech was done in (somewhat faltering) french, and covered tghe general issues of free software and patent/artistic issues. The Q&A and pannel discussions were much more interesting, mainly for the rather viscious debate between rms and marcus bornfreund of Creative Commons Canada.
rms has withdrawn explicit support for the Creative Commons project (though he recognizes it is a “better” option than the mainstream) because CC has added several new licence options (to the original six), at least one of which, in rms’s view, do not do an adequate job of protecting freedom. (Here is the full list of CC licenses). rms argues that, like the GPL, the creative commons licences should insist on a certain number of core freedoms. Apparently in conversations with CC founder Larry Lessig, Lessig said that those freedoms were “empty” in the CC format.
This criticism of Creative Commons set off the litigator instinct in lawyer-Marcus Bornfreund, who attacked Stallman’s position (and Stallman himself) as a “fascist leader,” forcing his “ideology” on his “followers,” and denying people “choice,” after all doesn’t “choice mean freedom? Yet your leader wants to deny you choice.” It was a pretty intense attack, and a little awkward, but raises a very good question that people need to be able to answer. Is choice freedom?
Bornfreund’s view, as I understood it, is that the author (of art, of software) should be able to choose between a full spectrum of licences, presumably from the freest to the most restricting (if his claim that choice means freedom is valid, then in this case the choice should go all the way to the most restrictive patent/copyright now available). Bornfreund is arguing to give the author the ability to allow users of his/her work to share, if the author wishes. Freedom to share is something the author has the right to grant, or not.
Stallman claims that certain freedoms must be essential for everyone, such as the right to make unlimited non-commercial copies of works. Stallman is arguing that the right to share should be an essential freedom for people regardless of what the author thinks. (Note this is in non-commercial cases). Freedom to share is an inalienable right for all of society.
In other words, Stallman argues for freedom in society, whereas Bornfreund argues for freedom of the author.
It’s too bad the debate was so acrimonious, with, I think it’s fair to say, Bornfreund crossing the line from reasoned argument to show-boaty attack, and not coming off too well in the process. His fascist comments were over the top, and his views of freedom rather childish (if you think freedom is so great, then I am free to punch you in the nose and there’s nothing you can do about it), still if you don’t have time to think about it they sell well, especially since you hear this kind of view of freedom so often (eg free markets = democracy etc).
I guess Stallman has seen this kind of attack before, in the Open Source split from the Free Software movement, where his insistence that there is a philosophical reason for making source code available was made a secondary concern to the pragmatic advantages to open source coding methods. That is, the ethical principle of Free Software was replaced with pragmatic principle in open source. An improved means of production is not the goal of the free Software movement, though it’s a nice fringe benefit.
To be a principled person in the face of competing practical concerns is not easy, and Stallman just seems to shrug off accusations of utopian dreaming and evangelism. He has a belief about what is right, a goal for what right would look like, and refuses to bend from these pillars. He’ll continue taking lumps for that cause, I’m sure.
indymeda.quebec recorded (audio & visual) the event and it should be available here, soon.
and congrats to Robin Millette and the rest of the organizers and volunteers for putting together such a successful event.
[…] right and You conference, here in Montreal, with speaker Richard Stallman. He gives a good run down of the presentation and the panel discussion […]
Pingback by » Blog Archive » CopyrightAndYou 2005: the Low-DownLibrarianActivist.org — July 4, 2005 @ 4:33 pm
good writeup, hugh. Thanks for going home and putting finger to keyboard. and I second the congrats to Robin and the people that organized the event.
Comment by mtl3p — July 4, 2005 @ 9:08 pm
Does Choice Mean Freedom?
Thanks to Hugh for his objective report on the copyright2005 conference in Montreal.
RMS is certainly no stranger to open and harsh criticism, but calling him a “fascist leader†merely disqualifies the opponent.
…
Trackback by Sen No Sen — July 5, 2005 @ 4:20 am
[…] . Il a toutefois insisté sur le fait que l’on parle de version du logiciel. » Et aussi un résumé en anglais de Hugh McGuire sur Dose Magazine: « In other wor […]
Pingback by un compte-rendu de la journée Copyright 2005 » IM2 | OQP — July 5, 2005 @ 7:23 am
Yeah, I don’t know if this is well-known yet but it’s very unfortunate: Stallman & Creative Commons have developed an official rift. I haven’t seen any other blog posts about it, has anyone?
It’s too bad this happens. Stallman is accused of being inflexible, but he has defined his goal (freedom) and won’t compromise on his goal in favour of a more “successful” (read: widespread) project, if that project has obscured the goal itself.
Anyway, we await more news about this.
Comment by hugh — July 5, 2005 @ 2:59 pm
But the question is…did he put a hard drive platter on his head and sing the Free Software Song, or indoctrinate anyone to the holiest of congregations known as the Church of Emacs?
Comment by Nick — July 6, 2005 @ 12:41 pm
Thanks for the report, it clarified my understanding of the Stallman/Bornfreund debate.
Comment by Nico — July 6, 2005 @ 7:13 pm
Freedom And The New Feudalismâ„¢
rms has withdrawn explicit support for the Creative Commons project (though he recognizes it is a “better” option than the …
Trackback by Scratchings — July 12, 2005 @ 5:47 am
Stallman vs Creative Commons
dose reports from Copyright 2005, where Richard Stallman and Marcus Bornfreund (CC Canada), apparently had quite an argument.
rms has withdrawn explicit support for the Creative Commons project (though he recognizes it is a “better†option than…
Trackback by Karl Jonsson's Weblog — July 13, 2005 @ 10:02 pm
Does anyone have more info about the actual issue? The post indicates the cc dev nations license as the one rms objects to? Anyone have any details?
Comment by Karl Jonsson — July 14, 2005 @ 6:42 pm
there’s a related interview with rms here (scroll down fro english). But reading this makes me a little confused.
says rms in this interview:
given that this seems arbitrary (10 years, 20 years, 2 years) which freedom is rms defending at CC and what is the exact problem? … lets hope we get some clarification from the man himself!
Comment by hugh — July 14, 2005 @ 8:42 pm
dose :: rms vs creative commons @ copyright2005 :: July :: 2005
Without someone like RMS, IMHO The terms Open
Source or any other such licensing terms may have not even existed. The
guy deserves much better than this
This criticism of Creative Commons set…
Trackback by Derek's Babblings — July 16, 2005 @ 7:01 pm
Hi everyone - I wholeheartedly agree that Mr. Stallman is to be given due regard for his role in giving birth to the free/open source software movement. As a visionary, he is beyond reproach. There is no ill will towards Mr. Stallman or the FSF from myself or Creative Commons Canada.
I write only to clarify that the debate turned on the use of the always-contentious term ‘freedom’, ie. freedom from the perspective of the user or the creator? The debate was largely semantic, perhaps too-much so and I apologize if it was taken as a personal attack. The polemic discourse I engaged in during the debate was simply to illuminate the strict ideology of the FSF’s position. My words have since been taken out of context and strung together to create an incorrect recounting of my own position.
Mr. Stallman believes that freedom (his definition) and choice are not inherently interrelated. That given the software licences available, freedom (his definition) can only be achieved through the GPL - hence, where free software is the objective there is no choice.
Upon further reflection, I can see how this may be one perspective though I fail to comprehend how this abstruse reasoning furthers the community’s larger goals. The position of Mr. Stallman to formally withdraw his support for the Creative Commons project is regretful and I hope something that can remedied in the near future. There is much work to be done in this area and a divided and loosely organized effort on behalf of those who support freedom/openness only serves those who oppose us.
Best regards.
/Marcus
Comment by Marcus Bornfreund — July 19, 2005 @ 12:12 am
Hi Marcus! Thanks for stopping by … and I’m glad to hear a clarification of the issues of the debate from the CC Canada side, as I think the debate itself happened in a somewhat unfortunate way (though everyone I’ve talked to said that was the best part of the evening!). The pirotechnics detracted somewhat from the important issues at hand. [I should note, by the way, that rms was not above reproach either, saying at one point that marcus was using “sleazy tactics”].
First off, lets get rid of a couple of red herrings: respect for rms’s past is irrelevant to the question. His adherence to a “strict ideology” is, I think, irrelevant. And the question of keeping a united front, is distracting, if not irrelevant.
RMS is ideologically strict not because he is unreasonable, but because the purpose of the FSF is promotion of freedom, so compromising on freedom (as FSF defines it) is not an option. For instance, wider distribution of FS is not to be traded for certain restrictions on freedom. That’s fair enough I think.
The question is: what is the difference between the Creative Commons position and the FSF position, and which position do I and others wish to support?
The FSF position is this: software should be free. Hence giving, for instance, the author of software the “choice” between making it free or not is not good enough. After all, if microsoft decided to make half it’s software free, that would be OK but would not solve the fundemental problem.
Similarly, with Creative Commons, what’s the objective? To give artists and companies the option to liberate their works if they wish to? Or to liberate art?
By the way, I am still somewhat confused about what exactly the disagreement is on a practical level. software and art are not the same thing, and rms supports copyright protections for art. he does not advocate free art as he does free software. see comment 11 above. That being the case, what’s wrong with having some restrictive Creative Commons licences, that go some way to liberating art, but not all the way as GPL does with software?
I would love to see this abstract debate brought to a practical concrete level. What exactly does rms see as wrong with the current CC approach, and how dose CC respond? As it is I don’t have enough info to clearly understand the differences of position, nor to decide where I sit.
Comment by hugh — July 19, 2005 @ 5:19 pm
From what I can remember (a video is coming out soon, not sure how much of the debate it captures yet), RMS wants the CC to have some sort of rule of conduct, simple rules that would help dictate further directions. Not rules RMS would present, of course, the CC should come up with its own ;)
Hugh, you’ve summurized what the CC is in your words, a question, really : ” To give artists and companies the option to liberate their works if they wish to? Or to liberate art?”
Seeing as Free Culture by Lessig, a founding member of CC, spends a lot of words on Freedom, things aren’t as bad is they seem, I hope. As Marcus said above, the debate was mostly semantics. If I was in the same situation again, I still don’t know what I could do… but get someone else to take care of the next panel and maybe as some suggested, have the panelists meet over lunch maybe. It would get some stuff out in the air and possibly let us lay “ground rules”. But I don’t know…
Comment by Robin — July 20, 2005 @ 10:02 am
hey robin,
Everyone I know thought that was the best part of the evening. It was entertaining, and, I think, important.
Reducing the question to semantics is, I think, unfair. There is a fundamental question at the base, that is where do we wish freedom to sit: everywhere, or at the discretion of an author (or the Disney company who gives him the contract).
Comment by hugh — July 20, 2005 @ 3:04 pm
Audio recordings of Copyright 2005 are now available, thanks Oana :)
Comment by Robin — July 23, 2005 @ 5:56 pm
testcomment60
Comment by testanchor255 — October 15, 2005 @ 6:38 pm
apostar jugar portales web
You can also take a look at some information in the field of tragaperra linea
Trackback by apostar jugar portales web — October 21, 2005 @ 10:33 am
please visit the below link too Car Review
Comment by car — March 28, 2006 @ 3:03 am
Well written!
Comment by bill — April 29, 2007 @ 9:43 am
In which country do you live? :)
Comment by firefox mozila — March 18, 2008 @ 5:50 pm