http://www.gnu.com/support/faq/
>>61573359
I'd just like to interject for a moment. You appear to be using an element from this image in your post: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Richard_Stallman_by_Anders_Brenna_01.jpg
You may have done this accidentally, but you've violated the terms of its copyright license. This is a serious offense and I hope you take it as seriously as it deserves.
Not to say that you're not allowed to create derived works from this image, you are, but this picture is released under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Norway license. Therefor, you are free:
to share - to copy, distribute and transmit the work;
to remix - to adapt the work;
Under the following condition:
attribution - You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work).
In this case, the attribution requirement is resolved simply by including the following in your post:
Anders Brenna [CC BY 3.0 no (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/no/deed.en)], via Wikimedia Commons
Now that you have read this, I hope you have a better understanding of your rights and obligations when remixing and sharing this work. They will let you edit, now be nice and credit~
>>61573359
Is this GNU/Snowboard binding truly libre, /g/?
I was momentarily befuddled.
>>61573636
The fsf is about safeguarding users' freedom to utilize software. Legal licenses is the way they do what they do; it's a means to an end, and is not a end in and of itself. I bet they'd drop licensing and their legal department altogether if they could achieve their goals without them.
Also, they don't give a shit about attribution.
Eat shit you piece of false-flagging lowlife.
>>61573822
Those sizes make no sense. SI units please.
>>61573985
>The fsf is about safeguarding users' freedom
>so they wouldn't require that a license which grants that freedom be honoured
>>61574703
> I can't read for shit.
Reread my post. Slowly.
>>61575160
>The fsf is about safeguarding users' freedom to utilize software.
This is true, and unless you mean that they wouldn't care about things that aren't software (which is incorrect) it's irrelevant.
>Legal licenses is the way they do what they do; it's a means to an end, and is not a end in and of itself.
In that case, we can disregard the GPL since it's just license, right? We can just not care since they don't care, as long as we make the code "open" then they don't care, right?
Well, the GPL is in place specifically so that downstream recipients get the freedoms they're guaranteed. If you don't follow the GPL, people can be under the impression that they can use the software in a nonfree program or, worse, that they can't use it at all.
The same is the case with CC BY: it's more than saying "I made it;" it's saying "you can use it, too."
>I bet they'd drop licensing and their legal department altogether if they could achieve their goals without them.
"They could if they would" is not "we can act as though they did." Since copyright licenses are what they use and copyright licenses are what give people freedom, copyright licenses are what they care about.
>Also, they don't give a shit about attribution.
The GPL, written by the FSF, requires a complete list of authors to be maintained. That's attribution.
>Eat shit you piece of false-flagging lowlife.
In other words, you're a false-flagging lowlife for pointing out that you're breaking the law.
Take a deep breath and count to 10 before replying.
>>61574020
Pretty sure it's going by US shoe size. Although, I think ski/snowboard boots are fit differently.
>>61575644
OP got rekt.
=====
Edit by anonymous, CC By, from Pepper & Carrot by David Revoy, CC By