2 ms·
I see no hypocrisy at all. The FSF campaigns for software freedom, not necessarily for freedom with regard to works of art. Whether software is a work of art or
by ue_ 10y ago
I see no hypocrisy at all. The FSF campaigns for software freedom, not necessarily for freedom with regard to works of art. Whether software is a work of art or not is irrelevant. I'm all for public domain with works of art, but it's simply not a battle the FSF has chosen to fight.
Stallman himself has said that he has no problem with NoDerivs on his own work, or other people's work. This is why his website is mostly a "verbatim distribution is allowed in any form..." or something like that.
I see no issue here at all, and I think it's quite wrong for the author to attack the FSF over this, espeically when there are other things one could complain about (such as linking to MELPA not being allowed on the Emacs mailing list because MELPA d(id|oes)n't have the license for their JS specified as the FSF wants it.
I don't mean to criticise the FSF, they're a very good organisation in my eyes and I hope they continue doing what they do.
- ewzimm 10y agoI would take that further and say that using restrictive licenses for opinions shows that the FSF is serious about freedom and not just biased against the idea of restrictive licenses.
- emn13 10y agoI don't disagree. It looks suspicious (the ND license). If you will: it's no noxious odor; it's a faint whiff. But the article doesn't uncover anything that backs up this superficial unease with something solid.