On 11/25/12 13:17, Kete wrote: > In that speech, Richard Stallman said: >> To modify them is to misrepresent the authors; so modifying these >> works is >> not a socially useful activity. And so verbatim copying is the only >> thing >> that people really need to be allowed to do. > > Creative Commons argues against this reasoning because it is not > necessary to > lock down your opinions in order to defend yourself from > misrepresentation.
That could be either true or not. It does not raise a user freedom issue. > On Sunday, November 25, 2012 09:13:08 AM Bryan Baldwin wrote: >> I see no reason to treat firmware differently from software. > > I do not interpret OdyX as saying we should; I think Didier Raboud is > saying > if we treated the documentation differently, then that is analogous to > distinguishing firmware from software. If that's true, it snaps back to my original statement that such assertions involve no productive thought, and are a waste of time. Whether anyone likes them or not, FSF have produced reasons beyond a simple assertion that documentation is sufficiently different from software to warrant separate licensing. There's a "use case", so to speak. If Mr. Raboud is saying firmware is different to software "just 'cause", without a reason, then he is saying that not liking other people's reasons for doing things is analogous to doing something for no reason at all. The argument is advanced no-where, and he has wasted our time. _______________________________________________ Fsf-collab-discuss mailing list Fsf-collab-discuss@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/fsf-collab-discuss