Re: GFDL license help
Jean Louis writes: > * quil...@riseup.net [2021-04-12 17:21]: >> Ali Reza Hayati writes: >> >> > I don't want to use those licenses again. I'm trying to avoid any >> > organization that signed RMS' resignation letter. I still contribute >> > to communities' works but I won't be using or contributing to any >> > organization that signed the RMS/FSF open lying letter. >> >> Me too. I will avoid promoting any project which does not openly support >> Richard Stallman. > > Maybe you meant, when it openly defame RMS. I might not be able to accomplish my intent. I am thinking that maybe it could not be convenient either. But what I meant is that I would promote only projects that support RMS. Some projects might have their own policy and would not want to take sides. So, I would have to think this policy better. ___ libreplanet-discuss mailing list libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss
Re: GFDL license help
Jean Louis writes: > That shows how corrupt are organizations. For people it is hard to > tell, as I do not know none of them. I know few good programmers and > good persons who speak against RMS in unfounded manner and I am kind > of negatively surprised how their minds work. In general, I expected > of programmers to think logically due to programming, but that is not > so, they may not at all be socially skilled and they may be geniouses > but social sociopaths. People are not motivated by reason. All people act based on feelings and emotions, even the most logical ones. What a smart person could do is control the stimulus for their emotions. In the end, emotions are the ones in control. In practice, the logic is there only to justify the path already taken. ___ libreplanet-discuss mailing list libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss
Re: GFDL license help
* quil...@riseup.net [2021-04-13 16:42]: > I might not be able to accomplish my intent. I am thinking that maybe > it could not be convenient either. But what I meant is that I would > promote only projects that support RMS. Some projects might have their > own policy and would not want to take sides. So, I would have to think > this policy better. Promote this website everywhere: https://stallmansupport.org/ as it is well written. I think it is good to see how those to us apparently "trusted" organizations are prone to make unfoundaed accusations and abuse the same human rights they were preaching to support previously. That shows how corrupt are organizations. For people it is hard to tell, as I do not know none of them. I know few good programmers and good persons who speak against RMS in unfounded manner and I am kind of negatively surprised how their minds work. In general, I expected of programmers to think logically due to programming, but that is not so, they may not at all be socially skilled and they may be geniouses but social sociopaths. -- Jean Take action in Free Software Foundation campaigns: https://www.fsf.org/campaigns Sign an open letter in support of Richard M. Stallman https://stallmansupport.org/ https://rms-support-letter.github.io/ ___ libreplanet-discuss mailing list libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss
Re: GFDL license help
* quil...@riseup.net [2021-04-12 17:21]: > Ali Reza Hayati writes: > > > I don't want to use those licenses again. I'm trying to avoid any > > organization that signed RMS' resignation letter. I still contribute > > to communities' works but I won't be using or contributing to any > > organization that signed the RMS/FSF open lying letter. > > Me too. I will avoid promoting any project which does not openly support > Richard Stallman. Maybe you meant, when it openly defame RMS. ___ libreplanet-discuss mailing list libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss
Re: GFDL license help
* Ali Reza Hayati [2021-04-10 14:30]: > I don't want to use those licenses again. I'm trying to avoid any > organization that signed RMS' resignation letter. Did Creative Commons do that? Well license is license, it does not matter, you may get some images, clipart under Creative Commons and you need to release it. License is created by organization, but you do not receive it from organization, you receive it from the author. You do not need to hyperlink to Creative Commons, you can place license on your own server and hyperlink it to there. > I still contribute to communities' works but I won't be using or > contributing to any organization that signed the RMS/FSF open lying > letter. Good choice, thanks. I have said the same to EFF directly. > But, Jean was right anyways. My blog publishes my personal views so > I shouldn't be letting people to modify my personal views. I updated > my license to verbatim copying and redistribution. That was used before on GNU pages on philosophy mostly, and there may be some pages still using that license. Please see here: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/licenses.html#VerbatimCopying The exact wording how I gave it to you, I also use for opinions. But would I release instructions like something about software, opinion on functions of Emacs Lisp, methods of management of databases or similar, I release that under GFDL. Jean ___ libreplanet-discuss mailing list libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss
Re: GFDL license help
Ali Reza Hayati writes: > I don't want to use those licenses again. I'm trying to avoid any > organization that signed RMS' resignation letter. I still contribute > to communities' works but I won't be using or contributing to any > organization that signed the RMS/FSF open lying letter. Me too. I will avoid promoting any project which does not openly support Richard Stallman. ___ libreplanet-discuss mailing list libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss
Re: GFDL license help
* Pedro Lucas Porcellis [2021-04-11 01:02]: > On Sat, Apr 10, 2021 at 10:48:03AM +0300, Jean Louis wrote: > > * Pedro Lucas Porcellis [2021-04-10 06:36]: > > > What's wrong with Creative Commons? > > > > There is no general Creative Commons license. You have to be > > specific. There are many various Creative Commons licenses. > > Well, the OP said he didn't want to use any license from Creative > Commons, so according to him, no license from CC is any good. That's my > question, why none of those license are acceptable to him. It is because Ali Reza said that Creative Commons are signers of harassment letter against RMS. Catherine Stihler, apparently, signed the letter. But I do not have proof, the letter is dubious. That letter defeats itself: https://habr.com/ru/post/549276/ This repository, its contents, and the manner of its usage through social media by the Author/Owner, identified as Molly de Blanc (in the course of her official duties and representing the GNOME Foundation and edX), is currently in wanton violation of: Github's Acceptable Use Policy Github's Community Guidelines Github's Terms of Service The FSFe Code of Conduct The GNOME Foundation's Code of Conduct Various US State and Federal Laws (brief citations below) Hate speech and discriminationa. While it is not forbidden to broach topics such as age, body size, disability, ethnicity, gender identity and expression, level of experience, nationality, personal appearance, race, religion, or sexual identity and orientation, we do not tolerate speech that attacks a person or group of people on the basis of who they are. But Github, being Microsoft, does tolerate hate speech. -- Jean Take action in Free Software Foundation campaigns: https://www.fsf.org/campaigns Sign an open letter in support of Richard M. Stallman https://rms-support-letter.github.io/ ___ libreplanet-discuss mailing list libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss
Blog licenses must be diverse - was Re: GFDL license help
* Ali Reza Hayati [2021-04-09 21:20]: > Hello guys. > > Can anybody help me with choosing a license for a blog other than Creative > Commons? I want to use GNU FDL 1.3 but I'm not sure if that's fine for > audio/video too. Can we use GFDL for audio and video too? If not, what > copyleft license do you suggest to use, other than Creative Commons > ones? Choosing a general license for one whole blog is not best idea, as you may host on your blog diverse pieces and types of text and media, each of them being licensed differently. - software, each software may have some different license, even if software is as a listing there. - instructions, such could be published under the GFDL, as people may be free to adopt, modify it; be it text, video, media, or presentation; - you could host images, or media with different licenses, so you have to consider those, for each thing specific license; you may even post copyrighted images, as there are various liberties, for example for purposes of commenting, scientific purposes, educational purposes, etc. - you can host opinions, so if it is about opinions, then you could use something like following: Verbatim Copying and Distribution Copyright © 2021 by AUTHOR. Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article are permitted worldwide, without royalty, in any medium, provided the copyright notice, the document’s official hyperlink and this permission notice are preserved. It is not required to retain page headings and footers or other formatting features. Retention of weblinks in both hyperlinked and non-hyperlinked media (as notes or some other form of printed URL in non-HTML media) is required. Or for opinions, you would use: Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License as on: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/ and see example here: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/philosophy.html This is because opinions should not be modified, and you should protect yourself. Imagine following short statement, expanded into whole article: "Ali Reza has opinion that we shall build free culture." Now comes the website visitor, sees the GFDL, and thus modifies the article to the meaning of: "Ali Reza proposes proprietary software on all home and office desktops." That would make no sense. Opinions are personal and shall be respected as such. Jean Take action in Free Software Foundation campaigns: https://www.fsf.org/campaigns Sign an open letter in support of Richard M. Stallman https://rms-support-letter.github.io/ ___ libreplanet-discuss mailing list libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss
Re: GFDL license help
* Pedro Lucas Porcellis [2021-04-10 06:36]: > What's wrong with Creative Commons? There is no general Creative Commons license. You have to be specific. There are many various Creative Commons licenses. Jean Take action in Free Software Foundation campaigns: https://www.fsf.org/campaigns Sign an open letter in support of Richard M. Stallman https://rms-support-letter.github.io/ ___ libreplanet-discuss mailing list libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss
Re: GFDL license help
On 11/04/2021 00:12, Jean Louis wrote: Did Creative Commons do that? Yes. Their signature (name) is on that idiotic so-called open letter. Well license is license, it does not matter, you may get some images, clipart under Creative Commons and you need to release it. License is created by organization, but you do not receive it from organization, you receive it from the author. I know. I have no problem using stuff licensed under CC licenses, I just don't want to publish my works under a CC license. -- Ali Reza Hayati (https://alirezahayati.com) Libre culture activist and privacy advocate PGP: 88A5 BDB7 E07C 39D0 8132 6412 DCB8 F138 B865 1771 OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ libreplanet-discuss mailing list libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss
Re: GFDL license help
On Sat, Apr 10, 2021 at 10:48:03AM +0300, Jean Louis wrote: > * Pedro Lucas Porcellis [2021-04-10 06:36]: > > What's wrong with Creative Commons? > > There is no general Creative Commons license. You have to be > specific. There are many various Creative Commons licenses. Well, the OP said he didn't want to use any license from Creative Commons, so according to him, no license from CC is any good. That's my question, why none of those license are acceptable to him. ___ libreplanet-discuss mailing list libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss
Re: GFDL license help
I don't want to use those licenses again. I'm trying to avoid any organization that signed RMS' resignation letter. I still contribute to communities' works but I won't be using or contributing to any organization that signed the RMS/FSF open lying letter. But, Jean was right anyways. My blog publishes my personal views so I shouldn't be letting people to modify my personal views. I updated my license to verbatim copying and redistribution. On 10/04/2021 08:05, Pedro Lucas Porcellis wrote: What's wrong with Creative Commons? -- Ali Reza Hayati (https://alirezahayati.com) Libre culture activist and privacy advocate PGP: 88A5 BDB7 E07C 39D0 8132 6412 DCB8 F138 B865 1771 OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ libreplanet-discuss mailing list libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss
Re: GFDL license help
Yeah, Create Commons By-SA might be the best license in your case. I use CC By-SA in my personal blogs and for audio and photography because it's better for sharing artwork. This is a good write up comparing CC By-SA and GFDL: [1]https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/GFDL_versus_CC-by-sa - Kesara On Sat, 10 Apr 2021 at 15:35, Pedro Lucas Porcellis <[2]porcel...@eletrotupi.com> wrote: What's wrong with Creative Commons? ___ libreplanet-discuss mailing list [3]libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org [4]https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discus s References 1. https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/GFDL_versus_CC-by-sa 2. mailto:porcel...@eletrotupi.com 3. mailto:libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org 4. https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss ___ libreplanet-discuss mailing list libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss
Re: GFDL license help
What's wrong with Creative Commons? ___ libreplanet-discuss mailing list libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss
Re: Blog licenses must be diverse - was Re: GFDL license help
Thank you Jean, I guess you're right. I'll do this. Thanks. On 10/04/2021 00:14, Jean Louis wrote: * Ali Reza Hayati [2021-04-09 21:20]: Hello guys. Can anybody help me with choosing a license for a blog other than Creative Commons? I want to use GNU FDL 1.3 but I'm not sure if that's fine for audio/video too. Can we use GFDL for audio and video too? If not, what copyleft license do you suggest to use, other than Creative Commons ones? Choosing a general license for one whole blog is not best idea, as you may host on your blog diverse pieces and types of text and media, each of them being licensed differently. - software, each software may have some different license, even if software is as a listing there. - instructions, such could be published under the GFDL, as people may be free to adopt, modify it; be it text, video, media, or presentation; - you could host images, or media with different licenses, so you have to consider those, for each thing specific license; you may even post copyrighted images, as there are various liberties, for example for purposes of commenting, scientific purposes, educational purposes, etc. - you can host opinions, so if it is about opinions, then you could use something like following: Verbatim Copying and Distribution Copyright © 2021 by AUTHOR. Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article are permitted worldwide, without royalty, in any medium, provided the copyright notice, the document’s official hyperlink and this permission notice are preserved. It is not required to retain page headings and footers or other formatting features. Retention of weblinks in both hyperlinked and non-hyperlinked media (as notes or some other form of printed URL in non-HTML media) is required. Or for opinions, you would use: Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License as on: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/ and see example here: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/philosophy.html This is because opinions should not be modified, and you should protect yourself. Imagine following short statement, expanded into whole article: "Ali Reza has opinion that we shall build free culture." Now comes the website visitor, sees the GFDL, and thus modifies the article to the meaning of: "Ali Reza proposes proprietary software on all home and office desktops." That would make no sense. Opinions are personal and shall be respected as such. Jean Take action in Free Software Foundation campaigns: https://www.fsf.org/campaigns Sign an open letter in support of Richard M. Stallman https://rms-support-letter.github.io/ -- Ali Reza Hayati (https://alirezahayati.com) Libre culture activist and privacy advocate PGP: 88A5 BDB7 E07C 39D0 8132 6412 DCB8 F138 B865 1771 OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ libreplanet-discuss mailing list libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss
Re: GFDL license help
Thank you Aaron. On 09/04/2021 23:08, Aaron Wolf wrote: In principle, you could use the GPL straight ahead and even AGPL. That would require that anyone who distributes the audio and video would actually include the source files, whatever they might be. This gets weird. Does it mean all the raw files and audio tracks and the saved sessions from editing programs? Maybe. The terms of GPL say that source is the preferred form for making changes. So, whatever form that is for you, that would be the source files for the text, audio, and video. I'm not the first to consider this, and there's something to it. I haven't explored the pros and cons of GFDL for these cases. On 2021-04-09 11:18 a.m., Ali Reza Hayati wrote: Hello guys. Can anybody help me with choosing a license for a blog other than Creative Commons? I want to use GNU FDL 1.3 but I'm not sure if that's fine for audio/video too. Can we use GFDL for audio and video too? If not, what copyleft license do you suggest to use, other than Creative Commons ones? Best. ___ libreplanet-discuss mailing list libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss -- Ali Reza Hayati (https://alirezahayati.com) Libre culture activist and privacy advocate PGP: 88A5 BDB7 E07C 39D0 8132 6412 DCB8 F138 B865 1771 OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ libreplanet-discuss mailing list libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss
Re: GFDL license help
In principle, you could use the GPL straight ahead and even AGPL. That would require that anyone who distributes the audio and video would actually include the source files, whatever they might be. This gets weird. Does it mean all the raw files and audio tracks and the saved sessions from editing programs? Maybe. The terms of GPL say that source is the preferred form for making changes. So, whatever form that is for you, that would be the source files for the text, audio, and video. I'm not the first to consider this, and there's something to it. I haven't explored the pros and cons of GFDL for these cases. On 2021-04-09 11:18 a.m., Ali Reza Hayati wrote: > Hello guys. > > Can anybody help me with choosing a license for a blog other than > Creative Commons? I want to use GNU FDL 1.3 but I'm not sure if that's > fine for audio/video too. Can we use GFDL for audio and video too? If > not, what copyleft license do you suggest to use, other than Creative > Commons ones? > > Best. > > > ___ > libreplanet-discuss mailing list > libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org > https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss > ___ libreplanet-discuss mailing list libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss
GFDL license help
Hello guys. Can anybody help me with choosing a license for a blog other than Creative Commons? I want to use GNU FDL 1.3 but I'm not sure if that's fine for audio/video too. Can we use GFDL for audio and video too? If not, what copyleft license do you suggest to use, other than Creative Commons ones? Best. -- Ali Reza Hayati (https://alirezahayati.com) Libre culture activist and privacy advocate PGP: 88A5 BDB7 E07C 39D0 8132 6412 DCB8 F138 B865 1771 OpenPGP_0xDCB8F138B8651771_and_old_rev.asc Description: application/pgp-keys OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ libreplanet-discuss mailing list libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss
