Law

We need this. The five day week is designed to suck all the mental life of an average mental worker person, and it leaves basically nothing if they "do their job really well".

Advocacy groups:

Some types of crimes include:

For Ciro Santilli's campaign for freedom of speech in China: Section "github.com/cirosantilli/china-dictatorship".

Ciro has the radical opinion that absolute freedom of speech must be guaranteed by law for anyone to talk about absolutely anything, anonymously if they wish, with the exception only of copyright-related infringement.

And Ciro believes that there should be no age restriction of access to any information.

People should be only be punished for actions that they actually do in the real world. Not even purportedly planning those actions must be punished. Access and ability to publish information must be completely and totally free.

If you don't like someone, you should just block them, or start your own campaign to prepare a counter for whatever it is that they are want to do.

This freedom does not need to apply to citizens and organizations of other countries, only to citizens of the country in question, since foreign governments can create influence campaigns to affect the rights of your citizens. More info at: cirosantilli.com/china-dictatorship/mark-government-controlled-social-media

Limiting foreign influence therefore requires some kind of nationality check, which could harm anonymity. But Ciro believes that almost certainly such checks can be carried out in anonymous blockchain consensus based mechanisms. Governments would issues nationality tokens, and tokens are used for anonymous confirmations of rights in a way that only the token owner, not even the government, can determine who used the token. E.g. something a bit like what Monero does. Rights could be checked on a once per account basis, or yearly basis, so transaction costs should not be a big issue. Maybe expensive proof-of-work systems can be completely bypassed to the existence of this central token authority?

Some people believe that freedom of speech means "freedom of speech that I agree with". Those people should move to China or some other dictatorship.

Related: cirosantilli.com/china-dictatorship/hate-speech

The opposite of freedom of speech.

For censorship in China see: cirosantilli.com/china-dictatorship/censorship

Related:

This one strikes the right balance between restriction and permissions. NC and ND are simply too restrictive.

TODO where does the SA boundary end? E.g.:

Does source code need to be redistributed: opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/1849/does-the-cc-by-sa-license-require-that-source-code-of-derivative-works-be-shared

Case law list on the CC wiki: wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/Category:Case_Law

Too restrictive. People should be able to make money from stuff.

The definition of "commercial" could also be taken in extremely broad senses, making serious reuse risky in many applications.

Notably, many university courses use it, notably MIT OpenCourseWare. Ciro wonders if it is because academics are wary of industry, or if they want to make money from it themselves. This reminds Ciro of a documentary he watched about the origins of one an early web browsers in some American university. And then that university wanted to retain copyright to make money from it. But the PhDs made a separate company nonetheless. And someone from the company rightly said something along the lines of:

The goal of universities is to help create companies and to give back to society like that. Not to try and make money from inventions.

TODO source.

The GNU project does not like it either www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#CC-BY-NC:

This license does not qualify as free, because there are restrictions on charging money for copies. Thus, we recommend you do not use this license for documentation.

In addition, it has a drawback for any sort of work: when a modified version has many authors, in practice getting permission for commercial use from all of them would become infeasible.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_Commons_NonCommercial_license#Defining_%22Noncommercial%22 also talks about the obvious confusion this generates: nobody can agree what counts as commercial or not!

Created by MongoDB, attempts to be even more restrictive than AGPL by more explicitly saying that indirect automatic requests are also included in the "you must give source" domain: opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/8025/difference-between-mongodb-sspl-and-gnu-agpl

The base use case is:which is what MongoDB is trying to ensure, which sounds fair.

This is an interesting licensing model that might just scale.