Re: [libreplanet-discuss] What do you think about the FSF using/endorsing nonfree cultural works?

[Daniel Pocock]

On 11/02/16 15:11, Fabio Pesari wrote:
> On 02/11/2016 01:29 PM, Daniel Pocock wrote:
>> Somebody else may take 90% of the slides and just change 10% of them and
>> start using them to promote a similar point of view (e.g. Open Source)
> 
> If the free software philosophy is indeed the strongest one (and I
> believe so), then this should not even be a concern but aside from that,
> those who create derivative works must credit the original authors, so
> the FSF in this case would get mentioned anyway.
> 

Actually, it depends a lot on exposure.  That is why companies spend so
much money on repetitive advertising of brands for running shoes and
soft drinks, they wouldn't spend that money if it didn't have an impact.

If the FSF can't afford to run "Free Software means ..." advertisements
during the Olympics then other viewpoints take mindshare.

20 years ago it was considered obnoxious to use a mobile phone in a
restaurant.  How easily society can change its views.

So, in the absence of large cash reserves to constantly remind people
about the real meaning of Free, organizations may be tempted to use
non-free licenses to control use of materials they have invested time
and money to create.

>> Is the FSF using nonfree licenses as a tactic to prevent that?
> 
> That would be pretty hypocritical so I doubt it.
>