As a follow-on to the discussion here about Richard Stallman’s recent talk about reforming copyright law, and his objections to my use of the terms “free software” and “open source software” interchangeably, Stallman sent me the following message (which I reproduce here with his permission, and indeed at his request):
“I see you posted part of my message. Could you please post all of it? If you post just part, readers are likely to conclude that I had no other criticism and agreed with everything else.”
Although I am not at all sure I agree that readers would be “likely to conclude” that he had no other criticism of my original posting, I’m posting the other parts of his message below. He continues:
“Did you change “open source” to “free software” in the original posting?”
That’s an interesting one. Here’s what I wrote back to him in response:
“No, I did not. I have several reasons for not doing so. First, I said what I said, and I’m uncomfortable (as a general rule) with going back and re-writing the history of the discussion — among other things, the ensuing comments about the use of the terms “free software” and “open source software” would be incomprehensible to a reader if I changed the original posting that way. More significantly, I’m uncomfortable with the notion that you get to decide what the terms mean for others. I didn’t use the terms incorrectly – I used them in a manner you disagree with. I’ve given you the opportunity to explain to my readers your disagreement, and they will decide for themselves whether they agree or not with your position. My job is to communicate with them as best I can, using the lexicon so as to make whatever point(s) I’m trying to make, and I don’t think changing the original posting is the right move in that direction.”
***************
Stallman’s original message to me in regard to my original posting:
I am disappointed that you describe my work as “open source”, because
I disagree with that camp and I constantly struggle against the
misinformation which labels my work that way. You might as well call
my work “Republican”. For instance, this sentence
“Stallman understands this thoroughly though the vast majority of
commentators on the open source movement have missed this point.”
is likely to lead readers to suppose erroneously that I am a supporter
of the open source movement, when in fact I disagree with it
fundamentally.
See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html for an
explanation of this disagreement.
Would you please replace “open source” with “free software” in this
posting about my work?
“. . . he has concluded that copyright law is broken, in fundamental ways, that it no longer functions to encourage the production of creative works, but in fact has quite the opposite effect, serving primarily to stifle creative activity.”
But I did not say that. That is not what I think, and I don’t say it
either. This is because I reject the more basic supposition that
encouraging the production of works is the sole or principal goal. I
do support that goal, but I think it is less important than another
desideratum: to respect the public’s important freedoms to use
published works.
I am willing to trade freedom for the benefit of encouraging
production of works only when it is a matter of an inessential freedom
(which, in the age of the printing press, it generally was).
I suspect that
his ultimate aim is not merely to substantially weaken copyright (as in his
proposal) but to eliminate it entirely,
I do not wish to abolish copyright; if I did, I would say so. I often
speak with people who advocate abolishing copyright, and I tell them
that I do not agree.
I remain am willing to trade inessential freedoms to encourage
production of works, and there are freedoms which I think are still
inessential and fit to be traded in this way. The proposal in my
speech is based on that. It reduces copyright power by restoring to
readers the essential freedoms, but it continues the copyright bargain
in regard to other freedoms which are substantial in economic
importance but not essential in my view.