On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 1:04 PM, Serge Hooge <[email protected]> wrote:
> But GNU.org and FSF.org use CC-ND, which is also non-free in terms of > "free culture", so I am not sure that's a great argument. > > Source code, however, I am not sure about indeed. > This[1] is all I managed to find. > > Perhaps a message to the admins would be in order? > This is indeed correct. Sorry if my message implied CC-ND meant non-free software. As I've said before on this list, I agree with the separation of free culture and free software in terms of concepts and movements, and am more of an advocate for free software than free culture. Indeed, we should message the admins. The way I see it there are two outcomes: 1. The software is indeed proprietary, and now we know for the future. 2. The software doesn't have a license, and we can maybe convince the admins to apply a free software license. 3. The software is free, but the admins are just not publicizing it (due to laziness, lack of awareness, etc.) and we can convince them to do so. *-- * Regards, *Tyler Romeo* 0x405d34a7c86b42df https://parent5446.nyc
