That logo already means copyleft, though.
IDK what their logo even is but it’s mine now
copyleft seems to only differ from the above description in that copyleft makes the free distribution conditional enforcing any derivative works to also be free to distribute
which honestly i feel is also implied in the OP’s post, because who wouldn’t feel wronged if they gave something to someone for free, and then that guy started selling it somewhere else, that’s just rude
well but it happens quite a lot anyways as we see… don’t see konica minolta giving out the sources of their printer firmware left and right, and they couldn’t have possibly made everything (including the webserver that serves the remote ui) from scratch, right…😜😜😜
Art belongs to its audience.
People have a right to culture.
I’d say yes, but, you don’t have a right to appropriate someone else’s art as your own.
By all means, copy and distribute. Even modify and make derivatives. But no plagiarism, please. Don’t take something that someone else made and then claim to have made it yourself without giving them due credit.
I agree, but if my only choices are “copy-right law as it is” vs “abolish all forms of copyright law, including plagiarism”, I’d go with the later.
(I am only talking about “law” here. People and orgs should still boycott and denounce plagiarism.)
this is a bot prolly same post https://lemmy.world/post/43667910?scrollToComments=true
oh yeah he always does that lol. there are a whole bunch of botnet instances run by power moderators from reddit who hate the people who devote their spare hours to make free software :0
what’s the source for the image?
Probably stolen from its creator. I think it should he taken down.
I choose to believe you understand irony.
Who could possibly give a shit?
Gotta find out if it’s copyrighted, you know?
i’m just curious 😭
me too kid, me too
Evil copyright be like
Nah, thats good copyright.
I know the meme. But the normal one we know is already the evil one :)
