On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 10:11:17AM -0400, bill-auger wrote: > that sounds all neat and clean - but the ugly secondary issue that is > barking loud here is that both the FSDG and the "free culture > definition" consider some of those "things" to be free merely because > they are artworks, even though they would be considered non-free if they > were software > > so whatever line we want to draw on the > "requires/facilitates/allows/prevents" spectrum of non-free toleration, > we must actually draw the same line in two different places depending on > what type of "thing" that thing is > > i say the "free culture definition" should be the one-to-one analog of > the "free software definition", providing all 4 freedoms with complete > corresponding sources; but the "social contract" document literally says > otherwise today Interesting points as always. I personally would prefer a single line to work to. Cleaner, less confusing. But if that is the framework we have then we should either work within that framework or re-define the framework. I suppose we could go nuts and create your-artistic-freedom that blacklist all things with non 4 freedoms type art assets. Thus people who care could install artistic-freedom and people more in line with the FSDG could not install.. and then everyone is happy except the maintainer of your-artistic-freedom.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.parabola.nu/mailman/listinfo/dev
