You don't *asterisk* need to make a
*asterisk* derivative work from nd sources. Just write an
*asterisk* original work about it.
This is *asterisk* actually what the FSF and GNU ppl want you to do. They do *asterisk* not want to be the central source for all things free, either.
Just say it in your own *asterisk* words!
On 05/25/2015 05:18 PM, Aaron Wolf wrote:
This is *asterisk* actually what the FSF and GNU ppl want you to do. They do *asterisk* not want to be the central source for all things free, either.
Just say it in your own *asterisk* words!
On 05/25/2015 05:18 PM, Aaron Wolf wrote:
And the ND clause helps this HOW? I think ND is *hurting* our cause and *increasing* the misrepresentation by discouraging some amount of positive derivative works that are *aligned* with FSF values. On 05/24/2015 10:15 PM, Will Hill wrote:I suppose the easiest way to demonstrate the misrepresentation is to ask an IT person about the FSF. If you can't remember your own surprise on first reading actual GNU and FSF material, you will probably be surprised by the average IT person's skewed perceptions. They are likely to tell you some confused things about "Open Source", "freeware", "hobbiest", etc. The general public is even less well informed. The last thing you might hear is a clear understanding of the power non free software has over users and what it takes to undo that. This problem of misrepresentation is not unique to free software. Rich and powerful people devote significant resources to confusing the public about all sorts of things. On Friday 22 May 2015, streondj@gmail.com wrote:will hill" easy to observe pattern of publishers missrepresenting GNU and the FSF by all means at their disposal"
--
