It seems some people deny really to read clear so here is a bit help: CC-BY-SA-3.0 is an unproblematic license and free, permissive. Just look here. To quote:

Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format for any purpose, even commercially.
  Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
  The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.

Perhaps some people in some forums outside for some systems should really stop claiming some information without reading the basics. You can always modify the data and share it, when you respect the original license and the people created the data. It is really not that complicated, just that some people seem to have an interest to follow strict what the FSF is naming without questioning the reasons - resulting in ignorance.

4. Restrictions.

b. You may Distribute or Publicly Perform an Adaptation only under: (i) the terms of this License; (ii) a later version of this License with the same License Elements as this License; (iii) a Creative Commons jurisdiction license (either this or a later license version) that contains the same License Elements as this License (e.g., Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported) ("Applicable License"). You must include a copy of, or the URI, for Applicable License with every copy of each Adaptation You Distribute or Publicly Perform. You may not offer or impose any terms on the Adaptation that restrict the terms of the Applicable License or the ability of the recipient of the Adaptation to exercise the rights granted to that recipient under the terms of the Applicable License. You must keep intact all notices that refer to the Applicable License and to the disclaimer of warranties with every copy of the Work as included in the Adaptation You Distribute or Publicly Perform. When You Distribute or Publicly Perform the Adaptation, You may not impose any effective technological measures on the Adaptation that restrict the ability of a recipient of the Adaptation from You to exercise the rights granted to that recipient under the terms of the Applicable License. This Section 4(b) , applies to the Adaptation as incorporated in a Collection, but this does not require the Collection apart from the Adaptation itself to be made subject to the terms of the Applicable License.

(ii) a later version of this License with the same License Elements as this License;

Version 3.0

Your contributions to adaptations of BY-SA 3.0 materials may only be licensed under:

    BY-SA 3.0, or a later version of the BY-SA license.
    Ported versions of the BY-SA license, version 3.0 or later.
    A license designated as a “Creative Commons Compatible License” as defined in BY-SA 3.0.

Currently, no non-CC licenses have been designated as compatible with BY-SA 3.0. Other licenses may be added to this list at any time according to the established process and criteria. Once a license has been added to this list, it will not be removed.

Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 4.0 license (a.k.a. CC BY-SA) (#ccbysa)

    This is a copyleft free license that is good for artistic and entertainment works, and educational works. Like all CC licenses, it should not be used on software.

    CC BY-SA 4.0 is one-way compatible with the GNU GPL version 3: this means you may license your modified versions of CC BY-SA 4.0 materials under GNU GPL version 3, but you may not relicense GPL 3 licensed works under CC BY-SA 4.0.

    Because Creative Commons lists only version 3 of the GNU GPL on its compatible licenses list, it means that you can not license your adapted CC BY-SA works under the terms of “GNU GPL version 3, or (at your option) any later version.” However, Section 14 of the GNU GPL version 3 allows licensors to specify a proxy to determine whether future versions of the GNU GPL can be used. Therefore, if someone adapts a CC BY-SA 4.0 work and incorporates it into a GNU GPL version 3 licensed project, they can specify Creative Commons as their proxy (via https://creativecommons.org/share-your- … licenses/) so that if and when Creative Commons determines that a future version of the GNU GPL is a compatible license, the adapted and combined work could be used under that later version of the GNU GPL.

    Please be specific about which Creative Commons license is being used.

Version 4.0 of CC’s Attribution-ShareAlike (BY-SA) license is one-way compatible with the GNU General Public License version 3.0 (GPLv3). This compatibility mechanism is designed for situations in which content is integrated into software code in a way that makes it difficult or impossible to distinguish the two. There are special considerations required before using this compatibility mechanism. Read more about it here.

Our community is built on constructive discourse and netiquette.

[NAME] ,i think this is impossible, since the forum administrator would ban [NAME] for his opinion if he wrote the same thing there))

There is only the opinion of one person (throgh) which cannot be disputed and even Richard Stallman has no right to do so
https://forums.hyperbola.info/viewtopic.php?id=521
No support and if the free, libre software is only possible with this person

(...)

The Hyperbola project is of course entitled to its own restricted selection of programs. Nevertheless, in my humble opinion, claiming the rejected programs raise freedom issues when they do not (by the standards of the FSF), makes much confusion, which is detrimental to the free software movement.

It is important to know that Hyperbola's developers tend to claim that any program they dislike is not free.

The same holds for the whole programming languages Hyperbola rejects (along with the programs using them, I assume):

    https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/PHP
    https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/Rust
    https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/OpenJDK

Only on https://forums.hyperbola.info/viewtopic … 6&p=17 (the last of 17 pages about "the roadmap after 0.4"), one can read that Subversion and Apache "are NOT free and libre" (the emphasis is throgh's), that "Apache-projects and the combined trademark-guidelines endanger free, libre principles", that "FSF is failing again its position as role-model given to show that there is not just only the license but also a social responsibility" because it endorses the WebM and VP8 formats, that any AV1 codec, including dav1d in VLC, "is not free and freedom itself", that with "so-called 'free alternatives' (Mastodon, PeerTube, Diaspora, Hubzilla etc.) [y]ou are all implementing illusions", that OpenArena "is not fully free and libre oriented", etc.

A comment on the AV1-situation and the codec itself: The "Alliance for Open Media" is using claims such as "open, royalty-free video coding format" but in fact there are clear patents and trademarks behind this codec. Also when looking at the founding members as listing: Amazon, Cisco, Google, Intel, Microsoft, Mozilla, Netflix

This is NOT a community-driven project. This is an industry consortium. We at Hyperbola deny distributing software driven only by industry-interests. We want community-oriented software and projects. This means by people for people. Not by company to customers. We are not customers, treated just as in being a contract at best or even more worse without having any further right granted. Here is clearly to see that companies and corporations do not allow another relation and also do not see more above their ignorance. Therefore we won't distribute aom or also dav1d. The reasoning for dav1d is exactly the same even when coming from the VLC-project: It is trademarked software and trademarks can risk freedom in advance.

And it is an illusion to think that distributing such software-packages will help anyone. This makes people depending on such codecs and those are also enforced on hard- and software on-going. So the question is really: Are we free to do and modify? Or are we just distributing industry-packages? Hyperbola is not and will not follow this path. We reduce the packages offered and remove out of reasoning. We do not maintain industry-packages offered by ignorance and arrogance in the thought that a generic lie for granted license is enough. Remember: This can always be revoked. The companies have concluded that "streaming" is the "next big thing" and therefore they have done steps into this direction. And now they present so-called "gifted software" as grant for free and libre software. Should we be that ignorant to accept those? The answer is here exactly: NO. There is no need for "streaming" but instead to have a secure system playing local videos.

You want to be free as in freedom? Meaning not driven by callout from others? Well, then there is a decision to make. In the end companies like Amazon, Apple, Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Cisco and many others have learned how to drop packages as so-called "open-source" but in fact have their patents and trademarks now protected through a wide group of people working for their projects without demanding anything and getting in return to be treated like a "customer" having a license-contract. That is not free and freedom itself is also bringing responsibility as we have written in another corresponding article.

You may ask as user: Hey and why did you added all those packages before when you remove them now? Easy to say: We wanted to reach first a status quo for release 0.4 to have the possible stable point. From there we have reduced and optimized further. Also we needed to learn more about the essential issues as we also thought the same as many others before that there are some packages and projects with issues. But the amount of issues we have seen since then was more than "just some projects".

So we need to review on-going which package we absolutely want and need and which ones we can clear remove or even need to blacklist. Remember here that Hyperbola is since version 0.4 build from scratch with all own packages and even an own packaging format in usage. We will have another fresh release with version 0.4.5 coming, where we have reduced another big amount and optimized many known packages further so they run even better with reduced issues and vectors to attack. Yes, this means also that there are many options like "streaming video / audio" is no longer available. But to be honest: A local secure system in the hand of its users is what we want. Not the opposite!

Sorry for the people in favor with the "next big online thing". But we here at Hyperbola do not see the need with more and more online-services to share even the smallest details with an unknown mass of people. That's exactly the point bringing our global society out of balancing. Everybody has a different understand what humor could be and what is a joke and what not. Everybody has an own border what is okay and what not. Bringing really every detail and having all people filling their time with nonsense meme-imagery, with even more attention-search is not the way we reach a better understanding for each other. Hyperbola is not supporting such movement as operating-system and project. We will not provide further integration of web-services. If this is the will of the individual user? Sure thing, do whatever suits you. But we only bring a basic operating-system, surely with all things needed for a local usage. But not more!

From our perspective the whole part of free and non-free JavaScript is NOT working. Yes, non-free JavaScript is same way absolutely not working and okay. But right away trying to overcome non-free JavaScript in non-free platforms sharing non-free data with some alike "free and open implementation" is not working either. That project would afford always being on-pair with the non-free platform and changing at any time possible new API-calls, possible new additions or restrictions to overcome. That cannot be the task for free, libre software. It is quite more honest to accept that this platform is then not possible to use, same as so-called "free alternatives" (Mastodon, PeerTube, Diaspora, Hubzilla etc.): You are all implementing illusions with a big amount of JavaScript. Aside from the technical issues named we have also social implications as no platform has brought people more together, only more marketing-interests and wannabe communication. It is more open to have a specialized forum and smaller communities.