[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [GNU-linux-libre] [libreplanet-discuss] [Dev] [consensus][due: 2016-
Re: [GNU-linux-libre] [libreplanet-discuss] [Dev] [consensus][due: 2016-06-13]: New version for Parabola Social Contract
Wed, 8 Jun 2016 21:44:27 -0300
On 06/08/2016 12:43 PM, Adonay Felipe Nogueira wrote:
> Well, unless I was really blind, I couldn't see the original sender
> (Luke Shumaker?) saying anything about "FOSS".
Yes it's right! he never means FOSS, however his thinking is based on it
about operating system terms for Parabola and Arch projects. In "FLOSS
and FOSS" article from gnu.org says: "“Free and Open Source Software” is
misleading in another way: it suggests that “free and open source” names
a single point of view, rather than mentioning two different ones. This
conceptualization of the field is an obstacle to understanding the fact
that free software and open source are different political positions
that disagree fundamentally."
See https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/floss-and-foss.en.html for further
> It's also important to note that, there is a definition of what "free
> culture" is, and it's guarded by the Definition of Free Cultural Works.
> Most people assume that every free software activist is a free culture
> activist, but that's not always true.
ok, you are right, but what about artwork that does not allow derivative
works and commercialization?
Even somebody can make the modifying and re-using of images, videos and
sounds (eg. somebody can modify a image colour, merge 2 videos, change
and modify the sound or add/merge parts that forms parts from another
projects (that are allowed through the license). Therefore, Free
Cultural Works is very important for the freedom. i don't mean if any
artwork needs source code but we could modify, re-use, redistribute and
sell them under our freedom principles.
Description: OpenPGP digital signature