Liberate this proprietary work

[throwaway1037]

Please may the proprietary license be switched to one which respects the freedom of the readers?

[thma]

You are referring to https://github.com/sdiehl/write-you-a-haskell/blob/master/LICENSE ?

What issues do you see with this license?

[throwaway1037]

I apologise for being unclear; I am referring to the CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

[thma]

So in what way do you think that https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/ does not respect the freedom of the readers?

[throwaway1037]

That license is proprietary because it does not meet the requirements for being a libre (free as in freedom) license: https://freedomdefined.org.

There exists also an essay presenting the case specifically against the CC NC-type licenses: https://freedomdefined.org/Licenses/NC. (Although one issue with this essay uses the term "content", which is terrible: https://gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Content, and one issue with that GNU article is that it is itself proprietary.)

As such, this work is unethical because it does not respect the freedom of the readers.

This is a shame because I've heard praise for this work and would like to read and recommend it to others, but cannot in good conscience until it respects the freedom of its readers.

[throwaway1037]

(Just giving the thread a bump.)

[smith558]

@throwaway1037 what about the freedom of the author of a work? the freedom to make choices on how and where it's spread and under what conditions?

[throwaway1037]

@smith558 one cannot prepend "the freedom to" onto something and expect the result to be a genuine freedom, eg. "the freedom to own slaves", and "the freedom to release a proprietary work" are both not genuine freedoms, because they are unethical things nobody should have the right to do.

[throwaway1037]

@smith558 your comment also presumes that authors should control where a work is spread, which is fundamentally anti-freedom and unethical; sharing is beneficial to society.

[smith558]

@throwaway1037 so you believe in the abolishment of private property?

[throwaway1037]

No, libre works are the only kind of works which respect the freedom of private property, and allow you to do the same things you are allowed to do with any other possession.

[AgustinCB]

@smith558 one cannot prepend "the freedom to" onto something and expect the result to be a genuine freedom, eg. "the freedom to own slaves", and "the freedom to release a proprietary work" are both not genuine freedoms, because they are unethical things nobody should have the right to do.

Why should nobody have the right to release proprietary work? How is that seriously comparable, in any way, with the freedom to own slaves?

The fact that you are using a throwaway account already suggest that either:

1. You are just trolling.
2. You know that your take is controversial and feel conflicted about attaching your real account to it.

In either case, the conclusion is that it is not straight forward that the author HAS to change the license.

The author has the right to choose whatever license they want. They are kind enough that they still release the full work to the public. Choosing a "less free" license is nothing (really, NOTHING) like owning slaves.

And I'm not sure it is worth spending any more time in this issue at all.

[throwaway1037]

I use a throwaway account because I don't want to give my real name to Microsoft who own Github. Hence, your claims based on the two supposed suggestions from my use of a throwaway account, and the claims which stem from it, are not backup up. My account is irrelevant to this discussion.

I compare slavery and proprietary works as two examples of unethical things, and how prepending "the freedom to" onto something unethical doesn't justify it. I chose slavery as an example of something unethical because it's uncontroversial and widely agreed-upon that slavery is unethical.

They are kind enough...

This demonstrates part of the injustice of proprietary works: I shouldn't have to grovel at the feet of an author, begging for kindness and for my freedom to be respected. This is one reason why proprietary works are unethical; they don't respect the freedom of the people who actually want to use them.

And I'm not sure it is worth spending any more time in this issue at all.

Perhaps from your point of view, freedom is unimportant, but I strongly disagree. 100% of the software I use is libre, and 100% of the works on my computer are libre. Not being libre is a barrier to entry for everyone who cares about and values his or her freedom.

I want everyone's freedom to be respected, hence I politely came and begged for it from authors who haven't given it to people already. I want this work to improve, and I actually want to read it. I care enough to want to read and love this work, but losing my freedom is too high a price to pay for any book.

What happened to "Give me liberty or give me death!"?

[throwaway1037]

@AgustinCB I forgot to @ you and add a couple of points:

Nobody should have the right to release a proprietary work, just as nobody should have the right to own slaves, because both are unethical.

Another way in which being a slave owner is like being a proprietor is that both have unjust power over people: the unjust power to control someone as a slave in the former case, and in the latter case, the unjust power to control what someone is allowed to do with a work.

In effect, the proprietary work is an instrument of unjust power, held by the proprietor, and exercised over the users of the work. Freedom means not having a master.

[AgustinCB]

This whole conversation being framed as a parallelism with slavery makes me very uncomfortable.

I compare slavery and proprietary works as two examples of unethical things, and how prepending "the freedom to" onto something unethical doesn't justify it. I chose slavery as an example of something unethical because it's uncontroversial and widely agreed-upon that slavery is unethical.

Well, that is the problem: It is uncontroversial and widely agreed-upon that slavery is unethical. It is not uncontroversial and widely agreed-upon that everyone should use a "free" license. If anything, your point of view is the outlier and the exception.

Another way in which being a slave owner is like being a proprietor is that both have unjust power over people: the unjust power to control someone as a slave in the former case, and in the latter case, the unjust power to control what someone is allowed to do with a work.

The author's "control over what someone is allowed to do with a work" is not comparable to controlling someone as a slave. I won't even try to explain why, as I think it is pretty self-explanatory.

You are putting your liberties over the liberties of the author. The author releasing a book under a proprietary license is not comparable to making you a slave (don't be ridiculous, for f**** sake). You are not obligated to use it, consume it, nor modify it. Your choice of doing any of those things should not force the author to select a different license. You are free not to use the book. If you use it, the author is free to set the boundaries of that use. In fact, it is more unethical to enforce a license on someone else's work, than to set boundaries on what someone else can do with the work one produces.

But let's play the game. Let's say that you are right, and the author is being unethical. Well, unethical is not the same as unlawful and the author still has the right to pick the license they like the best. Even in this case, this whole thread is just virtue-signalling at best.

You don't like the license? Don't consume the product. If you are right and it is it's uncontroversial and widely agreed-upon that a non-free license is unethical, most people will not consume the product and the author will be forced by the consumers to change the license.

Given the popularity of the book as is, though, my bet is that you are minority, and it is not a widely agreed-upon and uncontroversial fact.

[throwaway1037]

This whole conversation being framed as a parallelism with slavery makes me very uncomfortable.

Your comfort is irrelevant.

Well, that is the problem: ... It is not uncontroversial and widely agreed-upon that everyone should use a "free" license. If anything, your point of view is the outlier and the exception.

Tell me about it. I want the world to become a better and more free place, and part of that means putting in the effort to beg and grovel for works to be liberated.

Did you know that in many parts of the world, copyright on works doesn't expire until 70 years after the author's death, meaning that the work won't enter the public domain and become free until most people who would actually want to use the work are dead or old?

Did you also know that the length of copyright is also constantly being extended by lobbyist groups, meaning copyright is essentially perpetual by the installment plan?

The author's "control over what someone is allowed to do with a work" is not comparable to controlling someone as a slave. I won't even try to explain why, as I think it is pretty self-explanatory.

That's your opinion, which you're free to have, but as you know, I disagree.

I compare the two because they're both unethical and the parallel of one group having unjust power over another group is strong in this case, and is terribly striking.

You are putting your liberties over the liberties of the author.

I already explain that you can't prepend the phrase "the freedom to", or in this case the equivalent synonymous term "liberty" to something and expect the result to be a genuine liberty.

Nobody should have the liberty to unjustly control others, via slavery, or via proprietary works.

You are not obligated to use it, consume it, nor modify it.

(In case you were not aware, the definition of free works is written in terms of freedom, not obligation.)

Nevertheless, the term "consume" when applied to a published work, is propaganda; you're implying the only valuable quality of a work is how well it can be used up, which is not only factually incorrect for digital works which can be affixed to a storage medium indefinitely, but also terribly degrading to the work and massively disrespectful to the author, who at least in this case put lots of time and effort into the work.

Your choice of doing any of those things should not force the author to select a different license.

I am not and cannot force anyone to do such a thing. Again, I am merely begging and grovelling because I care enough to want to read the work, in freedom.

If you use it, the author is free to set the boundaries of that use.

(See again where I explained about prepending "free" to phrases, and where I explained that nobody should have the right to make proprietary works because this is unethical and mistreats the users of that work.)

In fact, it is more unethical to enforce a license on someone else's work, than to set boundaries on what someone else can do with the work one produces.

Again, I can't force it. This claim is also ridiculous; forcing the liberation of a work is a parallel to forcing slaves to be released, both of which are laudable and ethical actions. Believe me, if I could force a work to be free, I would do it in a heartbeat.

But let's play the game. Let's say that you are right, and the author is being unethical. Well, unethical is not the same as unlawful

That's really scraping the bottom of the barrel. Slavery was also legal, but it was and still is unethical. The laws of the time period do not dictate what is ethical and what is not.

and the author still has the right to pick the license they like the best.

(Again see my rebuttal of this.)

Even in this case, this whole thread is just virtue-signalling at best.

The whole point of so-called "virtue-signalling" is to signal one's virtues to others in a discreet yet plainly visible way. That does not describe this thread; I am explicitly begging and grovelling for liberation, using an account under no name. What would be the point in "signalling" my "virtue"s to others when I won't get any recognition for it?

Don't consume the product.

(I already responded to the term "consume" when used in the context of published works.)

The term "product" does not make sense here; as far as I am aware, this work is not being actively sold, in fact it is enforceable under copyright law that this work may not be used by anyone other than the copyright holders for any such commercial activity.

If you are right and it is it's uncontroversial and widely agreed-upon that a non-free license is unethical, most people will not consume the product and the author will be forced by the consumers to change the license.

(I've responded to "consume", "product", and "force", already.)

This also harshly disrespects the author, because it implies that the only way he will make ethical changes for the better is via massive social pressure and public outcry. Do you take him for a fool?

Given the popularity of the book as is, though, my bet is that you are minority, and it is not a widely agreed-upon and uncontroversial fact.

This is really scraping the bottom of the barrel again. Popularity does not make something unethical ethical. As another parallel to slavery, if most people owned slaves, that would in no way justify it. In the same way, the existence of many proprietary works does not make proprietary works any less unethical. In fact, it speaks to how sick our society is for not only failing to outlaw such a practice, but allowing it to become widespread and passively accepted.