[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [gNewSense-users] gNewSense a only for software libre? Not requirin

From: al3xu5 / dotcommon
Subject: Re: [gNewSense-users] gNewSense a only for software libre? Not requiring free cultural works with software?
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2009 21:06:11 +0100

Il giorno sabato 21/11/2009 20:24:13 CET
bruno gomes <address@hidden> ha scritto:

>> I was thinking the other day is gNewSense only a distribution for
>> free
>> software? Doesn't it require that the art that comes with that
>> software to also be "Free Cultural
>> Works"(

The GPL and other free software licenses are focused just on the
software source code. 

So, for GPL (and FSF) does not matter if the artwork that comes
"attached" (not embedded) with the software code is or is not free.

Personally I do not like this. 

Indeed, I think that:

- we need freedom for *everything* in our lifes, not only for
  software code, so the "freedom ethics" of free software sould be
  naturally "extended" to all the stuff wich comes with/near the

- such a "limited" freedom as the freedom of free software is
  dangerous: free software might be used to spread non-free software
  pieces (LGPL), to promote non-free software and/or formats (like,
  i.e., a lot of Firefox addons and plugin do), to limit our freedom
  and privacy (like most of cloud computing services do...)

> I don't know about software, but I know it is 'Cientific Knowlage',
> not 'Artistic Creation'.

But for the laws of a lot of nations (like Italian laws) they
(software and artworks) are both the same thing: "intellectual works"...

> I am an artist, musician.
> I think that the 'creator' of an 'Art work' should always  have the
> power to choose about restrictions of copy and use of his work. It
> would be a litle freedom problem if he had not that power.. after
> all, Art, we like it wen the Artist was free to do it in his way.

I do not agree at all! In my opinion, this is very dangerous! 
When you admit copyright for artworks, people and *laws* which consider
software and artworks both intellectual works say you also have to admit
copyright for software code and ALL other stuff they call "intellectual

More, copyright laws are just legal tricks to artificially introduce
shortage in non-material goods, which are unlimited, in order to threat
them as if they were material goods... 
By this way, the neo-global-capitalism tries to apply private property
to all digital stuffs, intellectual works, science, knownoledge, ideas,
opinions, ecc...

So, I think, we should just fight copyrigh and patents, any time, any
type, any case.

> Cientific work is knowlage, and this is completly diferent.
> In my opinion, 'Privat Cientific Knowlage' should be considered a

I agree. But private property of non-material goods should be
considered a CRIME in general (if you look with the
material/non-material lens, artworks, science, software, etc... are all
the same!).

> The European Inquisition is one of the best known examples of
> what 'Privatising Cientific Knowlage' can do to individuals,
> comunities and society in general.

Yeah... But, indeed, the European Inquisition was interested also in
arts, not only in science...

al3xu5 / dotcommon

Support free software! Join FSF:
Public GPG/PGP key block
ID:           1024D/11C70137
Fingerprint:  60F1 B550 3A95 7901 F410  D484 82E7 5377 11C7 0137
Key download:
[ Please, do not send my key to any keyserver! ]

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

reply via email to

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