[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [libreplanet-discuss] [Trisquel-users] Final Thesis: H-node

From: Thomas Harding
Subject: Re: [libreplanet-discuss] [Trisquel-users] Final Thesis: H-node
Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 20:41:49 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:10.0.12) Gecko/20130116 Icedove/10.0.12

Le 15/05/2013 16:13, Quiliro Ordóñez a écrit :
El 15/05/13 03:13, Michał 'rysiek' Woźniak escribió:
Dnia wtorek, 14 maja 2013 o 23:57:39 Quiliro Ordóñez napisał(a):
I'll quote Carlos, who responded to me on that off-list (hope this is okay,
"I've been participating on the discussions and, in the end, the non-free
licenses will stay anyway. Creative Commons doesn't want to take a political
stance, and will let other groups to do so (like the recently restructured
Free Culture Foundation)."

So this ship has already sailed, unfortunately.
That is too bad. Thank you for the info.

I think that if their name is Creative Commons, those are the licenses
they should support. If they want to support other licenses that do not
belong to the commons, they should make another name for that group:
perhaps Non-creative Restrictions.

Perhaps the way they took is longer than expected, but as far as I know, the /final/ goal is to get rid of NC- and ND- .

just bullshit

ND- :
That's really not obvious a /content/ (an artifact) has to be freed (as in freedom), and even FSF GFDL, which purpose is documentation, offer(ed?) for invariant sections.

I acknowledge the fact CC unclearly mixes free and non free, and that's make unclear not only to the recipient but the "provider" too what freedom (of content) is, so maybe one interest of that group would be to make things "more obvious" (such as make clearly different logos and licenses names to avoids ambiguity).

Nevertheless, there are still needs to offer an /invariant/ licence on works : if you author an essay /on/ Free Software, you certainly won't want someone introduces subtles changes to turn it /against/ Free Sofware (moreover keeping your signature :).

On the other hand, it's up to another person to seed from your work -- and others -- to make what she wants, and allowing /large parts/ of your work to be re-employed would be /mandatory to [un]make the ideas [un]free/.

That's the way art and more generally ideas goes, and that's the way been forgotten for a century :)

Such a group could advocacy either in a way or the other, but placed "here" is an intend to go the right one. Here (that thread), this is "un procès d'intentions".


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]