4 ms·
Ironically, the article is published under a non-free license.
by andrewshadura 9y ago
Ironically, the article is published under a non-free license.
- ssaew333 9y agoLook what I found at the bottom of the article: "Released under Creative Commons NoDerivatives License 4.0" So you can distribute this freely, as long as you acknowledge the author. And since it's content, not software, it's not imperative to allow modification. (Fair use still applies to critical responses) You're being way too picky.
- quadrangle 9y agoI don't know if it's irony, but RMS has this (I assert WRONG) view that opinion statements like this article shouldn't be free culture. He wants to use the legal structures to make any translation or derivative work something he can censor unless he approves of it. He's worried about being misrepresented (even though the actual free CC licenses don't allow altered derivatives to be presented as though they were unaltered etc). I think this article could very well be a valuable free-culture contribution. The chain of derivatives could go deep, and having to get permission at every step cuts it off. This is a long-standing disagreement between RMS and those of us who support cultural freedom.