They are considered "public information", so no droit d'auteur. All government data considered as public information were published starting 2011 with an open data licence, the Etalab licence similar to the UK one.
> When Facebook makes you use a real name it's not because theres some "Mr. Evil" at the top level plotting to steal your freedom, it's because it leads to a better working social network.
You clearly have not thought of the situations where using your real name can be dangerous (see for example activists) or just plain misleading for the purpose of the page (see for example, famous authors etc.). The factors of real life and people needing to hide behind a pseudonym should not be disregarded so absolutely by Facebook.
I can see where your comment is coming from, but as you say about Stallman, the world is not all black and white and people should have a right to this grey area even on a social network.
"Everything is free to read* they say. But there’s an asterisk, pesky and persistent, next to read. And it’s a big one.The asterisk is that you can’t do anything but read the document, and you have to download use their proprietary reader software in order to read the document, and you have to hope that someone who has a subscription or is a journalist is kind enough to share a link to the document that you want to read, and if you try to do anything other than look at the document passively on a screen you’re basically gonna get sued for copyright infringement." http://del-fi.org/post/104125242971/natures-shareware-moment
But by all means, let's celebrate a step forward taken by Nature.
I will too criticize a nation that just spent the last few days bombing children and civilians, breaking basically most of international conventions. My baseline for criticizing a nation is, and i hope we can all agree to that, killing children.
I was thinking about this conflict ( I'm neither Israelian nor Palestinian ) and my personal opinion is that if you have more advanced military forces than your opponent you definitely should take responsibility for all casualties ( civilians and military ).
I think terrorism is the worst thing that takes lives on our planet right now, but I'm not sure the way to fight with it is killing so many people.
I'm keen on covert ops, intelligence, special operations, etc. But when you do massive bombarding of a city with thousands of innocent people I think you are going the wrong way.
"You should be sympathetic to our decision to kill civilians because it's the only way to favorably engage the terrorists!"
seems exactly on-par (morally speaking) with
"You should be sympathetic to our decision to get civilians killed because it's the only way to favorably engage the oppressive occupation!"
It's a prisoner's dilemma through and through. The only way I can see to break the symmetry is to note that one side stands to lose less by appeasing the other.
OK, if that's the case, it's not good - but how many people did it kill? The Israelis can argue as long as they like that Hamas' actions are the cause, but there's absolutely no doubt that it's Israeli bombs and bullets doing the killing. Even when a "fighter" is targeted, the Israelis may sincerely regret killing 2-3 civilians bystanders as well - but they're undoubtedly innocent civilians killed by Israel all the same.
Although the validity of the license could be disputed because of the obscurity of the permission, the legal recourse you'd have is the "estoppel". Meaning if I have a license (and thus the author's permission that goes with it) to act, and the author later sues me for something that is already permitted, the estoppel defense is raised to dismiss the claim.
But the author hasn't clearly granted me any permissions. He just said to do what I want to. Which is what I do anyway. So why bother saying it?
Even if we can construe "do what you want to" as granting some kind of permission, it isn't clear what permissions it's granting. It can't really be that I have his permission to do literally anything I want to. That's not a reasonable contract. Since it appears to permit everything, it also permits things which the author would easily and rightfully be able to sue me for, which the author can't waive. So it doesn't permit just anything I want to do. But that's what it says. So what does it permit? The hell of it is that there is no way for me to know until I'm already in trouble. The language of the license doesn't specify any class of safe acts regarding the code, some court has to decide what it allows. And I really have no way of knowing whether what I'm doing with the code will trigger a suit or whether the court will decide it wasn't permitted. While estoppel could be worth trying if you got into this jam, it isn't clear that estoppel will save you as a user of WTFPL code. And if it isn't clear to me, it won't be clear to an author who licensed a project WTFPL and wants a legal remedy against me for some use of his code; even having an issue go to court threatens my livelihood pretty effectively.
