Rather a troll of a story here:
http://news.slashdot.org/story/09/08/12/018255/Leaving-the-GPL-Behind?art_pos=2
and the subsequent discussion stinks a bit, because there's a lot of false
logic, ad hominem attacks and assumptions mixed in (it's slashdot discussing RMS
after all).
But one of the most interesting informative posts buried under more highly
moderated crap, IMHO, was:
###begin quote###
Re:Control freak (Score:3, Interesting)
by Squiggle (8721) on Wednesday August 12, @01:07AM (#29033741)
RMS actually makes a distinction between different types of information and how
free it needs to be. At one of his talks he discussed 3 categories:
1) works of practical use (educational materials, software tools, etc):
- should be free (GPL)
2) works of testimony (what people experienced or believe):
- republishing with modification is misrepresentation,
- commercial use covered by existing copyright
3) works of art and entertainment:
- commercial use requires permission, personal use is fine
His position is nuanced, not stupid. I actually think the distinction is too
difficult to make and it is best to error on the side of freedom, but there are
certainly some tricky "moral rights" or artistic integrity issues for categories
2 and 3 with GPL-style freedom.
###end quote###
PJ
lugdelhi dot to dot peejay at spamgourmet dot com
_______________________________________________
ilugd mailinglist -- ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org
http://frodo.hserus.net/mailman/listinfo/ilugd
Archives at: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.user-groups.linux.delhi
http://www.mail-archive.com/ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org/
