Re: Proposed: Debian's Five Freedoms for Free Works
On Sat, 2003-06-14 at 06:15, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 13, 2003 at 09:15:26AM -0400, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
> > Branden Robinson <branden@debian.org> writes:
> >
> > > I personally have advocated a fifth freedom:
> > >
> > > 5) The freedom to retain privacy in one's person, effects, and data,
> > > including, but not limited to, all Works in one's possession and
> > > one's own changes to Works written by others.
> >
> > I think (though I'm not sure) that I agree with what you're trying to
> > do, but I don't like using privacy as its basis[1]. Reasonable people
> > can disagree, of course, but I think it's important to understand that
> > privacy and the free flow of information are competing values, and the
> > optimum is some point between either extreme that maximizes other
> > social values.
>
> I don't find your observation objectionable; I have been wrestling with
> a sound philosophical basis for my "instinctive" feelings on this
> subject.
>
> As long as the goal is met, I'm not particularly enamored of grounding
> freedom 5 on the concept of privacy. It probably shouldn't be grounded
> explicitly on *any* political principle, since people can have differing
> value systems, yet agree on this particular point.
Branden, perhaps the term "information disclosure" would better suit
you/us than "privacy"? That is we propose a DFSG-free licence cannot
mandate information disclosure of anything but the information forming a
distributed and derived work.
I agree with Jeremy that I don't like using the idea of privacy as a
basis for the freedom. Not accepting licences that require mandatory
information disclosure seems much more concrete and exactly encompass
the consequences you set out in your initial post.
Regards,
Adam
Reply to: