Yes, he does approve of non-free licenses when a work is not utilitary. Textbooks and software, in his opinion, are utilitary and allowing their modification benefits society. Works of art and opinion, again in his opinion, should not be modified because that brings no benefit to society and distorts the viewpoint of the author. That is why he uses CC-BY-ND for his own essays instead of a free-as-in-freedom license, a move considered by many free-culturists as hypocrite.
Recently, the drivers for the Raspberry Pi's graphical drivers were released as free software. However, only the part that interfaces with the chip was released, and several blobs (contained within the chip's firmware) are still to be released. Other competitors, like the Cubieboard, claim to have freer drivers, but I am unsure on how much is truly free and how much is proprietary. What is your position on these devices? Do you consider them free enough to use, or will you wait until more of the code is released as free software?
Being a promoter of freedom to share and modify, your opinion that works of opinion and art should *not* be allowed to be modified is particularly interesting, some would say even hypocrite. However, I have little information on your reasons for that position, besides of your opinion that such modifications do not contribute to the benefit of society, as opposed to the modification of educational or utility works, such as software or textbooks. However, the culture of remix and the right to respond point otherwise. Which measures would be required, in your opinion, to ensure that your works of opinion and art were modifiable?
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks for the message. Can you cite all that?
Indeed, I have my sources available:
Yes, he does approve of non-free licenses when a work is not utilitary. Textbooks and software, in his opinion, are utilitary and allowing their modification benefits society. Works of art and opinion, again in his opinion, should not be modified because that brings no benefit to society and distorts the viewpoint of the author. That is why he uses CC-BY-ND for his own essays instead of a free-as-in-freedom license, a move considered by many free-culturists as hypocrite.
Not the only one, actually. The CubieBoard and other chips that use the Allwinner A10 system-on-a-chip have source code for their graphics drivers.
Recently, the drivers for the Raspberry Pi's graphical drivers were released as free software. However, only the part that interfaces with the chip was released, and several blobs (contained within the chip's firmware) are still to be released. Other competitors, like the Cubieboard, claim to have freer drivers, but I am unsure on how much is truly free and how much is proprietary. What is your position on these devices? Do you consider them free enough to use, or will you wait until more of the code is released as free software?
Being a promoter of freedom to share and modify, your opinion that works of opinion and art should *not* be allowed to be modified is particularly interesting, some would say even hypocrite. However, I have little information on your reasons for that position, besides of your opinion that such modifications do not contribute to the benefit of society, as opposed to the modification of educational or utility works, such as software or textbooks. However, the culture of remix and the right to respond point otherwise. Which measures would be required, in your opinion, to ensure that your works of opinion and art were modifiable?