Apparently there are still a lot of people out there that don't understand that most #OpenSource and #CreativeCommons licenses require attribution where you give credit to the creators whose work you are reusing or building upon. Being a good digital citizen and doing this only helps grow the commons. Don't forget.
@downey The licenses, they are not open source, because they are not code.
And in terms of licenses used in Free Software, such as GNU GPL support user freedom. If you give credit or you're not bound to it.
Regarding CC licenses that include the attribution clause, in those if you are obliged to attribute credit.
I Recommend the use of the term Free Software and not open source, since the term open source, has no intention to promote the freedom of users, but only the good of the code. #gnu
Yeah, but no. FSF do not respect their own rule 0 in their GPL.
"The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0)."
From the GNU Manifesto, and in some form shows up in most GPL's.
"GNU is not in the public domain. Everyone will be permitted to modify and redistribute GNU, but no distributor will be allowed to restrict its further redistribution. That is to say, proprietary modifications will not be allowed
Copyleft is not individual freedom of use."
On a superficial level, it seems like just another freedom.
But its consequence is that they lose their freedom.
We have learned that when someone has nothing to eat, the answer is not to tell him to sell himself into slavery. It is to give them food.
@Hyolobrika @downey @jmw150 The concept of freedom that I gave, about having control over your own life, is the concept of freedom which is advocated by the Free Software Foundation. If you are not in control of your own life in this case you are not free. Even if you have decided to lose it of your own choice.
This service is offered by alarig.
Beer, privacy and free software lovers. Join us!