>software freedom law center's website >softwarefreedom.org/ >Unless otherwise indicated, all content licensed CC-BY-SA 3.0.
>electronic frontier foundation's website >eff.org >Any and all original material on the EFF website may be freely distributed at will under the Creative Commons Attribution License, unless otherwise noted.
>the website of the GNU project, whose movement started it all >gnu.org >This page is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Why does the GNU website violate freedom 3? Is it just not as important as the other three?
GNU is about software, web pages don't exactly count as software.
Luis Ramirez
>software needs to be free >but ONLY software Some could argue that free culture is as important as free software, if not more so.
Anthony Turner
Neither do these text files which coincidentally resemble source code for a piece of software.
Jace Smith
I don't get it.
Justin Hernandez
that dog is a glow in the dark CIA nigger
Kevin Thompson
Maybe they don't want you to use a modified GNU logo for your own stuff Didn't Stallman say that he only has problems with proprietary software as opposed to proprietary content? I can't recall
Isaiah Murphy
The first three websites linked are all available under free (some would erroneously call them "open source") licenses, while GNU's website is under a nonfree (which some correctly refer to as "botnet") license. The GNU project is one of the pioneers of free software, so this decision is startling at best. green is my pupper He gets mad if you call it "content." I'd tell you what his thoughts are further on it, but the page where he explains it is CC BY-ND, which means it's incompatible with this thread's license.
Luis Cook
>green is my pupper
Connor Carter
The answer is very simple. The GPL and the 4 freedoms were created by Stallman for software because they're essentially tools. To ensure that users can study, modify and use those tools however they want to. Art and other forms of expression are not tools. They have only one purpose: to convey the author's thoughts; modifying them is not that important and might actually lead to manipulation and misrepresentation. Like news networks do all the time. That's why the FSF and Stallman are so reluctant to allow people to pass around modified versions of their content. They want people to share the content just like they made it to be sure it cannot be manipulated or misrepresented to confuse say stuff they don't intend to. In order for media to be free as in freedom all it needs to do is allow you to study and play it without restrictions, to backup it and to sell/share it to other people. So basically all media without DRM is free as in freedom.
Alexander Watson
Literally Stalin-tier then.
Eli Johnson
Not really. Marx himself had to openly disconnect himself from the "Marxists" of his era because he felt his (retarded and backwards) ideas were being misrepresented by extremists.
The GPL and all the FSF is doing is much more like the US' Constitution: it restricts some freedoms to ensure everyone can receive freedom.
For instance, stealing is illegal just to ensure everyone has a right to private property, even though stealing may be an action you decide to make. In the same vein, the GPL forbids you from making non-free derivative works to ensure everyone can make derivative works from that particular derivative work.
Luis Sanders
>They have only one purpose: to convey the author's thoughts; modifying them is not that important That is a narrow-minded view of art and especially culture. >and might actually lead to manipulation and misrepresentation. All of the Creative Commons licenses in circulation today account for this. The works used must be clearly marked as modified if they have been, and if the author requests that a re-user take off their name, they must comply. The biggest issue with CC BY-ND works is that CC BY-SA works cannot incorporate parts of them without having to evoke "fair use" or clear delimination, both of which do not give others the right to modify and share alike, so they should be avoided.
Connor Ross
Marx only "disconnected" himself from marxists that advocated socialism in one country or a non-world wide revoultion. He was condeming people who were to moderate not to extreme.
Jaxon Hughes
>Stallman >Stalin OH SHI-
Gavin Jones
WHAT DID YOU TO THIS POOR PUPPY?! DO YOU THINK HE *WANTED* TO BE A GLOW-IN-THE-DARK DOGGO?! DO YOU?! YOU SICK BASTARD!
Jacob Williams
green is my pupper
Joshua Perry
So what? Are you gonna explain yourself, or are you just gonna meme?
Luke Martin
the doggo respected OP's freedom to green
Lucas Moore
And yet OP didn't respect doggo's freedom to NOT green. And therefore made doggo a meme. You guys are memers. Shit thread.
Jacob Brown
are you an animal rights' advocate who believes the right to decline being portrayed as green is a personality right reserved to anyone let alone doggos
