The art for this blog post was taken from here: http://hackaday.com/2016/01/13/stallmans-one-mistake/ This art was taken without crediting the artist, and without permission from either the artist or the publisher.
I agree that this is bad form, though, as the original article is very supportive of the Free Software movement, the author may have assumed a Gratis usage of the image.
I could not find on Hackaday any specific information about using their content, or not, but they do explicitly mention their general copyrights in their footer...
Edit: what I did not say, is that because there is nothing explicit it can not be assumed that you can use it without reference. Accreditation should be given where asked, technically it can not be used unless it was agreed upon. That's what my ... meant.
The free software movement, creative commons, and anything surrounding copyleft is predicated on the fact that everything is copyrighted at its creation. Copyleft is a 'hack' of sorts of copyright, in that the author or owner of a piece of work gives everyone else explicit permission to use it. You can't have copyleft without copyright, and everything is copyright unless it's explicitly copyleft. This isn't 'bad form'. This is copyright infringement and possibly the best teaching moment you could ever have.
The idea that the author of the above post would assume gratis usage of something shows how little even technical people understand how copyright and copyleft works. I could use this as a jumping off point to the actual failures of Stallman, where instead of educating people on these issues for the last thirty years, he's spending his time rhyming Uber with Goober, i.e. https://stallman.org/uber.html, but I digress.
As the author of the Hackaday piece, I'm cool with the author of the OP using the graphic, only because it's hilarious. Shout out to our resident artist, joe kim: http://theartofjoekim.tumblr.com/ He does awesome work.
> I could use this as a jumping off point to the actual failures of Stallman, where instead of educating people on these issues for the last thirty years, he's spending his time rhyming Uber with Goober, i.e. https://stallman.org/uber.html, but I digress.
What's the significance of Stallman rhyming "Uber" with "Goober"?
I mean, Doug Crockford has rhymed "Gonads" with "Monads". Would you seriously argue that he failed to educate people on functional programming in Javascript because of the tone-deafness of that pun?
I make the comparison because both authors have a clear, unadorned style and show great attention to detail in their arguments. The only relevant difference I see is that one writes and talks primarily on technical matters, while the other writes and talks on social and political matters. If bad puns are out of scope for the one but in scope for the other then I smell bike-shedding.
The GPL and copyleft are not magic pixie dust. Just as proprietary software is pirated very frequently, so too do companies and individuals ignore copyleft licenses. Like the BSA spends money to enforce proprietary licenses, so to do the FSF, SFC, gplviolations.org and others have to spend money to enforce copyleft.
There are also lots of violations of permissive licenses, but generally the authors of permissively licensed software do not bother to enforce their licenses.
Author of the Hackaday post. I would know if this were taken with permission. The artist (joe kim) can be found here: http://theartofjoekim.tumblr.com/
In case anyone's wondering, we (hackaday) probably would have allowed the author to use this art, provided we get a link back to the post or some credit to Joe. In the absence of that, we're just going to point and laugh at this guy for clearly demonstrating he doesn't understand copyright.
Please add a byline to Hackaday header images, or a rider to the article along the lines of "'Vishnu Stallman' by Hackaday artist Joe Kim". The first thing I did when clicking through to the linked article is to do a reverse image search that dead ended at Hackaday and walked away disappointed, not knowing that it was original content.
Hi, I'm the author of this, and I'm very sorry, I honestly just wanted a nice pic of Stallman and found it through Google without thinking much. I've added the credits at the end of the article now, both to Hackaday and Joe with links, please check if it's correct. If you want I'll remove the image, no problem!
Also, this article isn't about copyright law, it's about politics.
The art for this blog post was taken from here: http://hackaday.com/2016/01/13/stallmans-one-mistake/ This art was taken without crediting the artist, and without permission from either the artist or the publisher.