Stallman and the FSF have never considered derivative-works permissions necessary or appropriate for works of ideological expression, only for technical works.
This makes sense as giving derivatives permission to media containing political or ideological expression could make easier for adversaries to redistribute it after making subtle modifications with the intent of sabotaging the intended original message.
FSF is Richard Stallman. No discussion shall be entered into. Zero diversity of opinion. What RMS thinks right now is right and if you disagree you're not welcome.
The Free Software Foundation should change its name to reflect this fact. It's the RMS's current views on software foundation. It's alienating. Would I assign my intellectual property to the FSF when its really just RMS? Yeah I don't think so. If the FSF being just RMS's toy is wrong then how did this happen? How did the FSF impersonate an autocrat's fiefdom like this? Something is on the nose here, argue about what but it's not nothing.
Uhm.. If you look more than 2 seconds you can see that anyone can submit recordings of GNU related events.
And seeing RMS evangelizing for GNU/FSF is not strange, he pretty much started the whole movement and his/FSF's "agenda" has been publicly known for years, so whatever conspiracy you are thinking of doesn't exist.
...and basically nobody has submitted anything, right? If you disagree with RMS about anything are you listened to or does RMS bully you out of the FSF?
It's not a conspiracy it's an observation. Who other than RMS influences FSF policy? Anyone? When they disagree with RMS. The FSF is RMS. But thanks for the "you're a conspiracy theorist" trope. Much appreciated. Sure doesn't make me feel bullied at all...
8 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 29.4 ms ] threadFSF is Richard Stallman. No discussion shall be entered into. Zero diversity of opinion. What RMS thinks right now is right and if you disagree you're not welcome.
The Free Software Foundation should change its name to reflect this fact. It's the RMS's current views on software foundation. It's alienating. Would I assign my intellectual property to the FSF when its really just RMS? Yeah I don't think so. If the FSF being just RMS's toy is wrong then how did this happen? How did the FSF impersonate an autocrat's fiefdom like this? Something is on the nose here, argue about what but it's not nothing.
And seeing RMS evangelizing for GNU/FSF is not strange, he pretty much started the whole movement and his/FSF's "agenda" has been publicly known for years, so whatever conspiracy you are thinking of doesn't exist.
It's not a conspiracy it's an observation. Who other than RMS influences FSF policy? Anyone? When they disagree with RMS. The FSF is RMS. But thanks for the "you're a conspiracy theorist" trope. Much appreciated. Sure doesn't make me feel bullied at all...