I know this is going to be controversial and I understand that the FSF is about software and not culture but in truth, I disagree with the FSF's (and the GNU project's) usage of nonfree cultural licenses (like the CC-BY-ND).
I disagree with the idea that things that express a subjective point of view do not have to be free. Some software expresses a subjective POV, and most art does: before copyright laws, all works of art, religion and science used to be technically free, but that didn't stop people from creating them! The argument that using a free license lets a personal POV get "twisted" is faulty, because doing that is libellous (a crime) and I don't see anybody putting words in the mouths of Leo Tolstoy, Leonardo da Vinci and H.P. Lovecraft (all authors whose works are in the public domain). Attribution is not defamation! The same applies to many of our contemporaries who release their works under a free culture license - the folks at OpenGameArt can confirm you that, and I believe they are emotionally invested in their creations. There is a strong relationship between nonfree culture and nonfree software. Who wants DRM? Hollywood, the music industry and book publishers. It seems to me that promoting free culture would benefit free software, in the long run. This line of thought also affects negatively a whole category of software, videogames: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/nonfree-games.html > Since the art in the game is not software, > it is not ethically imperative to make the art free Aside from the fact that the art in videogames is functional and thus it should be free (according to the GNU FSDG), this statement can only lead to fewer libre games which can be distributed in free distros, reinforcing the beliefs gamers have about libre gaming. I can understand that the FSF wants to focus on software and it must let someone else campaign for free culture, but downright obstructing it (even when it directly affects software, in the case of videogames) doesn't really help our cause, especially when even a site like OpenSource.com is using a copyleft license, the CC BY-SA! I posted this not to start a flame war but because there are already many people who accuse the FSF of applying a double standard: http://www.cnet.com/news/fsf-promotes-freedom-with-a-closed-web-site/ http://blog.ninapaley.com/2011/07/04/rantifesto/ https://onpon4.github.io/other/fsf-no-derivatives/ I think it's better to have this discussion now and among free software supporters than later in the press.
