Apparently there are still a lot of people out there that don't understand that most #OpenSource and #CreativeCommons licenses require attribution where you give credit to the creators whose work you are reusing or building upon. Being a good digital citizen and doing this only helps grow the commons. Don't forget.
Yeah, but no. FSF do not respect their own rule 0 in their GPL.
"The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0)."
From the GNU Manifesto, and in some form shows up in most GPL's.
"GNU is not in the public domain. Everyone will be permitted to modify and redistribute GNU, but no distributor will be allowed to restrict its further redistribution. That is to say, proprietary modifications will not be allowed
Copyleft is not individual freedom of use."
@jmw150 @Hyolobrika @downey Published software should be free software. To make it free software, you need to release it under a free software license. We normally use the GNU General Public License (GNU GPL), specifying version 3 or any later version, but occasionally we use other free software licenses. We use only licenses that are compatible with the GNU GPL for GNU software.
On a superficial level, it seems like just another freedom.
But its consequence is that they lose their freedom.
We have learned that when someone has nothing to eat, the answer is not to tell him to sell himself into slavery. It is to give them food.
@Hyolobrika @downey @jmw150 The concept of freedom that I gave, about having control over your own life, is the concept of freedom which is advocated by the Free Software Foundation. If you are not in control of your own life in this case you are not free. Even if you have decided to lose it of your own choice.
QOTO: Question Others to Teach Ourselves. A STEM-oriented instance.
An inclusive free speech instance.
All cultures and opinions welcome.
Explicit hate speech and harassment strictly forbidden.
We federate with all servers: we don't block any servers.