On 06/08/2016 12:43 PM, Adonay Felipe Nogueira wrote: > Well, unless I was really blind, I couldn't see the original sender > (Luke Shumaker?) saying anything about "FOSS".
Yes it's right! he never means FOSS, however his thinking is based on it about operating system terms for Parabola and Arch projects. In "FLOSS and FOSS" article from gnu.org says: "“Free and Open Source Software” is misleading in another way: it suggests that “free and open source” names a single point of view, rather than mentioning two different ones. This conceptualization of the field is an obstacle to understanding the fact that free software and open source are different political positions that disagree fundamentally." See https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/floss-and-foss.en.html for further details. > It's also important to note that, there is a definition of what "free > culture" is, and it's guarded by the Definition of Free Cultural Works. > Most people assume that every free software activist is a free culture > activist, but that's not always true. ok, you are right, but what about artwork that does not allow derivative works and commercialization? Even somebody can make the modifying and re-using of images, videos and sounds (eg. somebody can modify a image colour, merge 2 videos, change and modify the sound or add/merge parts that forms parts from another projects (that are allowed through the license). Therefore, Free Cultural Works is very important for the freedom. i don't mean if any artwork needs source code but we could modify, re-use, redistribute and sell them under our freedom principles.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.parabola.nu/mailman/listinfo/dev
