[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [libreplanet-discuss] GFDL with Invariant Sections or other unmodifi

From: Bruno Félix Rezende Ribeiro
Subject: Re: [libreplanet-discuss] GFDL with Invariant Sections or other unmodifiable parts. Was: Final Thesis: H-node
Date: Sat, 25 May 2013 21:50:25 -0300
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.1 (gnu/linux)

Hello all.

I believe that preventing people from modifying or using, for any
purpose, a published work is ethically wrong.  No one deserves and can
possibly justify, on ethical grounds, such a power over other people's
life.  Therefore, something like CC-*-ND, GNU Verbatim, GFDL's invariant
sections and CC-*-NC should not exist.

I also strongly believe that releasing a work under a free but
non-copylefted license is morally wrong.  Because when you have the
ability and opportunity to prevent an injustice from happening it is
your moral duty to do so.  So, licenses like C0 or BSD should not exist.

Finally, under the light of the previous standpoints, I believe that
mandatory attribution is ethically illegitimate.  People should only
attribute a derivative work if they feel they should do so.  Thus,
CC-*-BY, for instance, should not exist.

"Michał 'rysiek' Woźniak" <> writes:

> The solution is a reasoned debate with the FSF and GNU communities to try and 
> convince them why -ND/GNU Verbatim is not a good idea. ;)

I think that convincing RMS is half way to get there.

 ,= ,-_-. =.  Bruno Félix Rezende Ribeiro (oitofelix) [0x28D618AF]
((_/)o o(\_)) There is no system but GNU;
 `-'(. .)`-'  Linux-libre is just one of its kernels;
     \_/      All software should be free as in freedom;

Attachment: pgpDzUZqs6UOX.pgp
Description: PGP signature

reply via email to

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