Re: history of the anti-copyright movement in the States

On Sat, 20 May 2000, Lynn Winebarger <owinebar[_at_]free-expression.org> wrote:
>
> The FSF is most definitely anticopyright. The copyleft license
> they devised is merely a way of subverting the system by using it,
> not an endorsement of the system itself.

I do not see FSF as anti-copyright, merely only anti-closed-system or pro-open-system. FSF has a strange definition for "free" (see http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html). Freedom (or free) means absence of restrictions and ownership. But, that is not what FSF sees. To them, freedom means that the owner of the copyrighted work forces (via license terms and conditions) others to keep the work open (not free) to other people. If force (and power) is used to accomplish the owner's intentions, it is no freedom.

Only one can find the complete freedom in the public domain. As I said before, each freedom has both blessings and evils. Since the FSF does not want the evils to happen, it decides to forget the public domain and instead uses copyright to control over people's actions. Certainly not anti-copyright.

Joseph Pietro Riolo
<riolo[_at_]voicenet.com>

Number of days left until 1-1-2019 when all knowledge of 1923 in the land of the U.S.A. will be freed from their copyright owners' prisons: 6,793 Received on Sat May 27 2000 - 01:30:27 GMT