On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 5:12 PM, Bradley M. Kuhn bkuhn@ebb.org wrote:
In other words, maybe we SHOULD pursue the Platonic ideal of copyleft, knowing full well that we can't live in the land of True Forms, but we should strive to it and see what happens.
Platonic ideal of copyleft strikes me as absurd, but it is also a malleable term, so I don't know what you mean. The particulars of copyleft are deeply shaped by the regulatory environment it evolves in, including already used copylefts. The "ideal" copyleft(s) in any given environment is the most effective mechanism for neutralizing threats to and for promoting software freedom starting from that environment; this we should strive for.
We're rounding about 20 years out from the genius idea of copyleft. Some people don't like RMS or his ideas, but I think no one denies that copyleft was an invention of great genius.
I must deny it. Perhaps in service of supporting it. Any important claim must be attacked, lest it die from the unremitting bludgeoning of obscurity and triviality.
"Genius idea" and "invention of great genius" are vague, but a few of the things that could be implied, along with an uncharitable interpretation of RMS-copyleft:
* The invention was not only clever, but also useful and good. It is hard to evaluate the net effect of copyleft on software freedom, and it seems nobody has really tried. Furthermore, it is easy to argue that software freedom is unimportant or even negative, such that if copyleft works, it is evil. Some software freedom advocates have admitted that software freedom is less important than say climate change or ending slavery. It is possible that advances in computing help those causes and software freedom is not optimal for advancing computing unless one defines unfree computing as not-computing, which is silly -- in any case this makes software freedom, thus effective copyleft, evil, and if it is genius at all, it is evil genius, and that's not the kind of genius we want to praise as "genius".
* The invention wouldn't have occurred anyway. This is impossible to know, but dubious. Reciprocity mechanisms and forced sharing are endemic. We know that even unambiguously "genius" inventions occur multiple times independently. Software freedom lost and attempts to "hack" things other than software were "in the air".
* The invention required genius. I don't see why. Copyleft is not in an intellectually challenging concept (I take widespread non-malicious incomprehension as damning for the non-comprehenders and/or the concept, not an indication that the concept is genius).
* The inventor was a genius. RMS surely has far above "genius level" IQ, but that narrow interpretation of "genius" should be rejected as euromale-capitalist-technocrat-hegemonic, and it is not clear that RMS would evaluate to "genius level" on a more democratic basis, if we even allow for such evaluation to exist.
* Ideas and invention matter. No they don't, only implementation and adoption by the masses matter. "Genius idea" is merely a mythologization of implementation and impact, which are greatly aided by many geniuses. Software freedom has at best ambiguous and tenuous success, copyleft's contriubtion to same even moreso, providing no evidence for the kernel of truth to be found in non-pernicious mythologizations.
* The invention has withstood serious criticism. Subterfuge by rent-seeking high-paid law-firm lawyers doesn't count, except in the sense that winners write history. Deafening silence from philosophers, social scientists, and activists on this matter and instrument purported by a few people to be of great moral importance.
Doubtless many more exist. Yes, I'm being a little bit silly with some of the above, but I'm completely serious about the need for criticism.
Here we are, the next generation, rearranging little ornaments on the tree of the genius idea of copyleft. I long ago made my peace with the idea that my life's work is to merely rearrange ornaments on the tree of software freedom. In that vein, I suggest that copyleft-next is perhaps, a licensing drafting placeholder, that keeps trying to rearrange these ornaments until someone among us looks at it and has an epiphany. Those only come along once every generation or two on any given topic.
All important progress may be characterized pejoratively as rearranging little ornaments, but I see no reason to. Instead I would characterize having an "idea" pejoratively, and assign all credit to implementation and painstaking improvement and diffusion.
Put another way, the tree of software freedom is a mere sapling.
Richard Fontana wrote at 11:35 (EDT):
we are entering an era where experimentation in licensing seems to be actively discouraged for what appear to be political reasons rather than reasons grounded in principle.
I am all for experimentation and ignoring any "establishment"-political reasons against same, but I also think introduction of further incompatibility is harmful for reasons grounded in principle. There is much room for experiment that does not introduce new incompatibility, and even that agitates for increased compatibility. In these respects I think copyleft-next is at least promising.
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 3:06 PM, Bradley M. Kuhn bkuhn@ebb.org wrote:
Because I'm one of the very few people on this planet who enforce copyleft,
This should weigh heavily on considerations of future copyleft policy, copyleft-next or elsewhere. A mechanism that depends on a very few non-superheros (though I'm much more willing to grant that your efforts are heroic than I am to put any idea on a pedestal) is a sad one. This may only indicate problems in software freedom beyond the scope of the mechanism itself, but if there's anything future mechanisms can do about it, they probably should. But it is easy to imagine both putting every conceivable enforcement tool in, and increasing readability, and other things, all as being helpful, and somewhat at odds with each other.
As one of the critics of TGPPL, I was very clear throughout that non-compatibility with FSF's license suite was my only complaint. Would there be use to copyleft-next for Zooko and I to finally sit down and *write* the AGPLv3 additional permission that makes TGPPL? Would that help inform the copyleft-next project?
It'd be neat regardless of copyleft-next! (Though I have a list of reasons TPL/TGPPL like mechanisms probably aren't important, if incompatibility is taken care of they are well worth trying out much more than present.)
Mike