41–49 of 49 posts
I hope they do something creative - such as take the entire site down for a few days in protest with a message that says something like "this is what your favorite websites could look like post-SOPA. Call your congressman now and tell him / her that SOPA should not be passed."
It's interesting that they're being criticized. One of the three responses on the page (the other two being positive) is: "This is an overtly political decision. Poor form."
I think the great thing about an organisation as large and as important as Wikipedia taking a stance on this is that it makes for great copy. Journalists will love it. I hope this GoDaddy story takes on a new life and makes the transition from the blogosphere to the newspapers and therefore the general public's consciousness. Keep on fighting my US friends. Keep on fighting.
This is probably the most important point. Boycotts of SOPA-supporting companies, as many have pointed out, do very little to stop the bill from passing. What they do succeed in doing is making sure opposition to the bill stays high in the news cycle and enters public consciousness.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That would be great. Maybe there should be a new open source software license featuring total denial of rights to use to the MPAA/RIAA member companies too.
Although I agree with these goals of such a move (fighting SOPA) such a licence would not be considered an open source or free software licence by the OSI or FSF. A licence must not discriminate based on endeavour.
So what? What's the downside of using a variation of a common license that is not approved of by the OSI or FSF?
Someone other than the target excluded group might not use the software you're offering for free?
Who would get mad if I released code under the MIT license (or some variant) with an additional requirement that it cannot be used to build Web sites the advocate killing abortion doctors?
If it's my code can't I just set whatever conditions I want (modulo the requirements of any prior licenses my code may be bound by)?
It's interesting that they're being criticized. One of the three responses on the page (the other two being positive) is: "This is an overtly political decision. Poor form."
Surely there are some serious Wikipedians floating around here. Hasn't anyone thought about adding a little bit of threaded conversation support to mediawiki so these back and forth discussions aren't such a mess?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, that would be bad. If open, it should allow everyone. The goal is to unite not segregate after all.
The goal is to unite not segregate after all Who says that? Why should you unite with your enemy?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Although I agree with these goals of such a move (fighting SOPA) such a licence would not be considered an open source or free software licence by the OSI or FSF. A licence must not discriminate based on endeavour.
such a licence would not be considered an open source or free software licence by the OSI or FSF. So what? What's the downside of using a variation of a common license that is not approved of by the OSI or FSF? Someone other than the target excluded group might not use the software you're offering for free ? Who would get mad if I released code under the MIT license (or some variant) with an additional requirement th…