[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Fwd: The FSF Allows No Derivatives,

From: Logan Streondj
Subject: Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Fwd: The FSF Allows No Derivatives,
Date: Mon, 25 May 2015 15:36:08 -0400
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)

On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 02:56:57PM +0200, Giuseppe Molica wrote:
> Will is right. There are too many people (IT and not) that don't know
> what Free Software is. 

so having translation of the original rhetoric in other 
languages and dialects would certainly help increase the number
of people that know about Libre Software.  Though is not 
possible due to ND clause.

> There are, also, too many others who know only
> "Open Source". We need to let people know about "philosophy" behind the
> GNU Project, without misrepresentation.

If the Bible had an ND clause, then it would have never gotten
past Judaism, and may have been lost to even Hebrews after the
diaspora, when many of them forgot how to speak Hebrew.

Sure maybe there was some risk in translating the bible to
Greek, Latin, or English,  but it did make it more accessible,
by now, most people in the world know about it,
it having been translated to 6,000+ languages.

people that misrepresented the teachings were typically labeled
heretics, and at the very least ostricised due to it.
Still I think the world has benefited, even from some
"heretical" perspectives, such as the holocentric world view.

> > that sounds like a conspiracy theory, and not very relevant. the only
> > pseudo-relevant "rich people" here would be Microsoft. so far, haven't
> > seen any other examples.
> I think he was talking in general, not only about "computer world". And
> he's right. Misrepresenting is a weapon that powerful people use to take
> some kind of advantage (in politics, for instance).

Sure, like when the top 1% blames the bottom 40% for being on
welfare, when the top 1% has over 170 times the wealth of the
bottom 40%. Sure, that is misrepresentation, and can be
confusing. In America there are lots of people that believe it
is the poor that is taking their money, willing to attack them,
shame them, and be otherwise be very mean, even if all the poor
(bottom 40%) combined only have 0.2% of the countries wealth,
vs the 34%+ of the  wealth which the top 1% have.

In any case, they aren't plagirising an opinion piece, 
they are fabricating a skewed perspective. 

> -- 
> Giuseppe Molica
> "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" - Juvenal


reply via email to

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