Note: The e-mail for which I'm replying wasn't copied to RMS, so in case of doubt, I'm making sure that my reply reflects part of the arguments of the parent e-mail.
Unless I'm really blind right know (which happens some times), I can't see how the requirements of the Definition of Free Cultural Works are present in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The UDHR seems to mention the freedom to redistribute exact copies of the original works non-commercially only for scientific advancement and its benefits, but doesn't guarantee other freedoms, and seems to restrict the freedom to redistribute exact copies of the original work. So, onpon4's statement against the free software movement's position on non-functional data doesn't seem to be convincing right now. as an alternative interpretation, I guess onpon4 is mistaking the positions of the free software activists in general. He/she seems to think that we call ourselves free culture activists (this is done only by misinformed people). We don't do so. But we don't oppose free culture activists. We just believe that there are other priorities in place, and that when free culture turns out to be a priority in scenarios where our other priorities aren't resolved, things tend to get out of focus, as I have already pointed out to all of you.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
