I heard that our lord and savior Richard Stallman doesn't approve of Creative Commons.
Something about it being a half-hearted organization that doesn't really understand freedom.
However it doesn't apply, he's talk about the problem of commercializing academic work licensed under non-commercial CC licenses.
If he's against them then it's ironic as on his personal website his photos are licensed under CC at the bottom:
Verbatim copying and redistribution of any of the photos in the photos subdirectory is permitted under the Creative Commons Noderivs license version 3.0 or later. You can copy and redistribute the photo of me playing music to the butterfly under the Creative Commons Noderivs Nocommercial license version 3.0 or later. Any other photos of me in this (the toplevel) directory may be copied and redistributed under the Creative Commons Noderivs license version 3.0
I no longer endorse Creative Commons. I cannot endorse Creative Commons as a whole, because some of its licenses are unacceptable. It would be self-delusion to try to endorse just some of the Creative Commons licenses, because people lump them together; they will misconstrue any endorsement of some as a blanket endorsement of all. I therefore find myself constrained to reject Creative Commons entirely.
He's pretty extreme, all or nothing 😂 I guess there's a difference between endorsement and just using them, as illustrated by the fact that he continues to use one of their licenses on his website.
I don't think he's extreme, as much as he recognizes that he's a "lord and savior" type of person, and lots of people take his advice without fully understanding his reasoning.
Heheh, I don't mind if you advertise FOSSbot.
I love FOSS, especially FOSS bots.
Would you mind if I just took a screenshot of the code from FOSSbot and put it into this story?
Why thank you, but actually I wasn't intending to advertise here! I thought you were talking about @renzoarg 's bot because of the name! 😇
Of course, take screenshots, code, whatever you want. It's Creative Commons Universal 1.0 licensed, i.e. in the public domain. 🤓
Oh, it's Creative Commons?
I heard that our lord and savior Richard Stallman doesn't approve of Creative Commons.
Something about it being a half-hearted organization that doesn't really understand freedom.
Also, I've never even heard of @renzoarg before!
I thought of the name 'ren' because of an oooold friend I knew long ago, and I needed a name quick.
But maybe I really was subtly influenced by the existence of @renzoarg and his bot. Heheh.
[comment depth reached]
Well I guess he might, he was instrumental in GNU GPL after all. But I couldn't find evidence of that claim.
The best I could find was this: https://stallman.org/articles/online-education.html
However it doesn't apply, he's talk about the problem of commercializing academic work licensed under non-commercial CC licenses.
If he's against them then it's ironic as on his personal website his photos are licensed under CC at the bottom:
😂
https://web.archive.org/web/20060815083329/http://www.linuxp2p.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=10771
Check that out!
And yeah, I think it's fine to use whatever license you want.
Just so long as you read it and agree first. =D
[comment depth reached 2]
Yea thanks! Here it is
He's pretty extreme, all or nothing 😂 I guess there's a difference between endorsement and just using them, as illustrated by the fact that he continues to use one of their licenses on his website.
Thanks! 😁
I don't think he's extreme, as much as he recognizes that he's a "lord and savior" type of person, and lots of people take his advice without fully understanding his reasoning.