>software freedom law center's website >https://w

>>60897329
Not an argument.

>>60897345
Right, it's a question.

>>60897329
GNU is about software, web pages don't exactly count as software.

>>60897966
>software needs to be free
>but ONLY software
Some could argue that free culture is as important as free software, if not more so.

>>60897966
Neither do these text files which coincidentally resemble source code for a piece of software.

>>60897329
I don't get it.

>>60897329
that dog is a glow in the dark CIA nigger

>>60897329
Maybe they don't want you to use a modified GNU logo for your own stuff
Didn't Stallman say that he only has problems with proprietary software as opposed to proprietary content?
I can't recall

>>60898009
The first three websites linked are all available under free (some would erroneously call them "open source") licenses, while GNU's website is under a nonfree (which some correctly refer to as "botnet") license. The GNU project is one of the pioneers of free software, so this decision is startling at best.
>>60898056
green is my pupper
>>60898062
He gets mad if you call it "content." I'd tell you what his thoughts are further on it, but the page where he explains it is CC BY-ND, which means it's incompatible with this thread's license.

File: pasted_image_at_2017_04_25_11_17_pm.png (512KB, 600x564px) Image search: [Google]

512KB, 600x564px

>>60898077
>green is my pupper

File: 1493347956524-mu.jpg (236KB, 1600x1561px) Image search: [Google]

236KB, 1600x1561px

The answer is very simple. The GPL and the 4 freedoms were created by Stallman for software because they're essentially tools. To ensure that users can study, modify and use those tools however they want to.
Art and other forms of expression are not tools. They have only one purpose: to convey the author's thoughts; modifying them is not that important and might actually lead to manipulation and misrepresentation. Like news networks do all the time.
That's why the FSF and Stallman are so reluctant to allow people to pass around modified versions of their content. They want people to share the content just like they made it to be sure it cannot be manipulated or misrepresented to confuse say stuff they don't intend to.
In order for media to be free as in freedom all it needs to do is allow you to study and play it without restrictions, to backup it and to sell/share it to other people. So basically all media without DRM is free as in freedom.

>>60898147
Literally Stalin-tier then.

>>60898166
Not really. Marx himself had to openly disconnect himself from the "Marxists" of his era because he felt his (retarded and backwards) ideas were being misrepresented by extremists.

The GPL and all the FSF is doing is much more like the US' Constitution: it restricts some freedoms to ensure everyone can receive freedom.

For instance, stealing is illegal just to ensure everyone has a right to private property, even though stealing may be an action you decide to make. In the same vein, the GPL forbids you from making non-free derivative works to ensure everyone can make derivative works from that particular derivative work.

>>60898147
>They have only one purpose: to convey the author's thoughts; modifying them is not that important
That is a narrow-minded view of art and especially culture.
>and might actually lead to manipulation and misrepresentation.
All of the Creative Commons licenses in circulation today account for this. The works used must be clearly marked as modified if they have been, and if the author requests that a re-user take off their name, they must comply.
The biggest issue with CC BY-ND works is that CC BY-SA works cannot incorporate parts of them without having to evoke "fair use" or clear delimination, both of which do not give others the right to modify and share alike, so they should be avoided.

>>60898286
Marx only "disconnected" himself from marxists that advocated socialism in one country or a non-world wide revoultion. He was condeming people who were to moderate not to extreme.

>>60898166
>Stallman
>Stalin
OH SHI-

>>60897329
WHAT DID YOU TO THIS POOR PUPPY?! DO YOU THINK HE *WANTED* TO BE A GLOW-IN-THE-DARK DOGGO?! DO YOU?! YOU SICK BASTARD!

>>60898930
green is my pupper

>>60899995
So what? Are you gonna explain yourself, or are you just gonna meme?

>>60900009
the doggo respected OP's freedom to green

>>60900204
And yet OP didn't respect doggo's freedom to NOT green. And therefore made doggo a meme. You guys are memers. Shit thread.

>>60900345
are you an animal rights' advocate who believes the right to decline being portrayed as green is a personality right reserved to anyone let alone doggos