Re: The copyright issue

[David Kastrup]

Andreas Röhler <address@hidden> writes:

> Am 09.08.2010 15:06, schrieb David Kastrup:
>> Andreas Röhler<address@hidden>  writes:
>>
>>    
>>> Am 09.08.2010 12:01, schrieb Richard Stallman:
>>>      
>>>> The main reason our lawyer gave when advising us to ask for copyright
>>>> assignments is so that the copyright status of the program is simple.
>>>> He said that would help us in court if we need to sue someone for
>>>> violating the GPL.
>>>>
>>>> We can make an exception occasionally when it is very important
>>>> but we should not make many exceptions.
>>>>        
>>> The crux is: this policy puts the risk at the weakest shoulders, at
>>> the contributors.
>>>      
>> No, it _takes_ the task of suing for compliance from the shoulders of
>> the contributors.
>
> Freedom is not a tool to sue. That's a mistake.

If nobody is willing to defend freedom, it goes away.  That's the whole
point of the GPL and the fundamental reason of GNU.  Feel free to
disagree, but preaching the opposite in a GNU mailing list is about as
useful as trying to convince the Pope of preaching Islam.  His job
description is just incompatible.

>> The accusation is acquisition and possession of child pornography.
>> If you consider this in any way connected with copyright assignment
>> policies, you are just crazy.  It may be loosely connected with
>> freedom of information and privacy, but that's utterly, utterly
>> unrelated to the topic of discussion.  So please get a grip and use,
>> if at all, examples that have anything to do with the point you are
>> trying to make.
>
> Defending free software means defending freedom of information also.

Are you for legalizing credit card fraud and bank fraud?  Your bank
accounts are just information.  Why would not some person be allowed to
tamper with the information that constitutes your money?

> Jörg Taus did both.
>
> The case of Jörg Tauss has been used to pervert
> legislation. Until then Art. 19 of Universal
> Declaration of Human Rights from December 10, 1948, was
> respected et least in theory:
>
> Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and
> expression; this right includes freedom to hold
> opinions without interference and to seek, receive and
> impart information and ideas through any media and
> regardless of frontiers.

But Tauss was not just informing himself about a machinery, he was
actively participating in it and feeding it.  That is not the same as
working for "freedom of information".

> Shortly before Jörg Tauss was sentenced, legislation
> was changed, making already of possession of
> information, i.e. pictures of a crime, a crime itself.

If the principal purpose of the crime is to create the "information" to
be passed around into people's possession for money and other
consideration, actively participating in a private network created for
the purpose of swapping this kind of material is keeping the crimes
going.

> Notably Jörg Tauss as Member of Parliament opposed that
> new law before, tried to check himself whats behind the
> child-porn-campaign. He felt fooled by services,
> assumed getting wrong informations at the real issue
> and purposes.  He was the speaker of his parliaments
> group in just this IT-, freedom of information related
> matters.

Apparently, he did not keep records on the level appropriate for an
investigation, but merely on the level needed for personal access.

It is fine to admire him for his stance in software patents, but that
does not make his legal problems any more on-topic here.

> FSFE should know his name from Patent- and other FSF-related
> matters very well.

Utterly meaningless for this discussion.  Focus.

-- 
David Kastrup