> Yeah and that's what we disagree with. :P There's nothing to disagree about. Free software is a definition. Now we can talk about whether this is desirable

> Yeah and that's what we disagree with. :P There's nothing to disagree about. Free software is a definition. Now we can talk about whether this is desirable of course, but this is not a discussion to put under "if you care about free software", that would be contradictory. > If Creative Commons has NC licences for art, why shouldn't software? CC NC licenses are non-free. And I certainly think there are things under CC ND that shouldn't (not speaking about all art, especially art that's not meant to have derivatives - especially art that's the expression of very personal emotions or views - I'm not set on this and CC has another clause for this: ND). > Even the JSON licence ("don't be evil") Yeah, no thanks. That was painful. Evil wasn't even defined. If you think something is evil, software license are not the right tools. Lobbying for the law to change and spreading the word is much more effective for this, broader, more universal, has the chance to be more impactful.