On 11/02/16 13:08, Fabio Pesari wrote: > 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! >
It is not just about defamation People may actively work on something (e.g. a paper or some slides) to promote a particular point of view (e.g. Free Software) Somebody else may take 90% of the slides and just change 10% of them and start using them to promote a similar point of view (e.g. Open Source) Is the FSF using nonfree licenses as a tactic to prevent that? It is an interesting question. A software analogy would be Debian using a nonfree license to stop Ubuntu, but then Debian wouldn't be Debian any more.
