Did some cleaning up.

site/about/index.org

@@ -89,3 +89,5 @@ depending on external JavaScript which depends on non-XHTML, like the FSF
 widget on the propaganda page, might cease to work).
 
 [[./links][Propaganda]]
+
+Should I go to HTML 5?  I don't really care.

site/about/niels.org

@@ -19,7 +19,7 @@ Niels goes by the nicknames "ngws" and "nqpz" (and a few others).
 ** Contact
 
 Niels can be contacted at [[mailto:ngws@metanohi.name][ngws@metanohi.name]].  You can also find him as ngws
-in #hongabar on irc.freenode.net.
+in #hongabar and #diku on irc.freenode.net.
 
 
 ** Things used by Niels
@@ -128,6 +128,7 @@ Most of these I don't use.  Some might be dead.
   + [[https://savannah.gnu.org/users/nqpz][GNU Savannah]]
   + [[http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/User:Schabeindividuum][Uncyclopedia]] (don't take this one seriously)
   + [[https://github.com/nqpz][GitHub]] (I don't like GitHub that much, but I use it sometimes)
+  + [[https://twitter.com/ngwwws][Twitter]] (not really using it)
 
 
 ** Keys

site/writings/freeculture.org

@@ -8,13 +8,11 @@ Free culture is about sharing and mixing creative works, often under
 [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft][copyleft]]. It encompasses pictures, video, audio, text and similar types of
 works.
 
-It is good.
+It is good, although not necessarily easy to produce.
 
 
 ** External links
 
 + [[http://freedomdefined.org/Definition][Definition of Free Cultural Works]]
 + [[http://freeculture.org/][freeculture.org]]
-+ The [[http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/][Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike license]] --- a widely used
++ [[http://creativecommons.org/][Creative Commons]]
-  copyleft license approved for free cultural works. Wikipedia uses this
-  license. This website uses it as well in many places.

site/writings/freesoftware.org

@@ -67,10 +67,10 @@ programmers who do not use software that allows sharing and modification tend
 to do.
 
 Fourth, if a program cannot be studied, and if that program contains code for
-reading from and writing to files in special formats --- e.g. the Microsoft
+reading from and writing to files in special formats --- e.g. the Microsoft Word
-Word format --- people are forced to use that program if they have a file in
+format --- people are forced to use that program if they have a file in such a
-such a format (yes, OpenOffice.org and LibreOffice have good support for such
+format (yes, LibreOffice has good support for such non-free formats, but not
-non-free formats, but not full support).
+full support).
 
 Fifth, if a program cannot be studied, you cannot be certain of its
 intentions. Since you do not know what the program does (in details), you do

site/writings/hacking.org

@@ -1,49 +1,10 @@
 #+title: Hacking
-#+summary: A simple description of what hacking is really about
+#&summary
+Hackety hack.
+#&
+#+startup: showall
 #+license: wtfpl
 
 * Hacking
 
-He's a *hacker*! Oh no, the pirate's going to *hack* our computer! And our mobile
+I use the term "hacking" to mean "playing with".
-phones! And our TV! Run for your lives! He'll use our credit cards to *hack*
-even more! He might even *hack* our fridge!
-
-That's not a hacker. That's an evil person. Hackers are not evil. Hackers are
-curious people. The evil person described above can be called a /cracker/
-instead. Such a person can be said to /crack/ computers and mobile phones, not
-hack them. Hacking is very different.
-
-*Hacking* is the act of creating new ways to use objects with well-defined
-uses. It's about experimenting, being clever, and playing. Hacking does not
-have to result in something useful, though it sometimes does in the long
-run. It's about the present.
-
-When you've hacked something, you've created a *hack*. It can happen
-spontaneously, or it can happen because you want it to happen.
-
-Once, I was eating a pizza in a restaurant with a group of friends when one of
-my friends couldn't eat anymore of his hummus. I had one slice of pizza back,
-and he had a little hummus back. I realized then that I could /combine/ the
-pizza and the hummus, and tada: I ate a hummus pizza slice (which was good, by
-the way); i created a hack.
-
-Much more clever hacks have been created, but the hummus pizza example should
-serve as a simple example of what a real-life hack /could/ be --- a hack can be
-so many things.
-
-Hacking is often associated with software development, because that's often
-about finding clever solutions and being open for new ways to do things.
-
-** "Just stop it already. You've lost."
-
-One could argue that the hacking community should just accept that the media
-and the non-hacker part of the public have long ago changed the meaning of
-hacker to "person who breaks digital security", and that hackers should just
-find another word to describe themselves. But if we did that, all the history
-associated with hacking would fade as new generations came along.
-
-** External links
-
-+ [[http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/H/hacker.html][The Jargon File: hacker]]
-+ [[http://stallman.org/articles/on-hacking.html][stallman.org: On Hacking]]
-

site/writings/licensing.org

@@ -5,8 +5,6 @@ What's up with all that stuff?
 #+startup: showall
 #+license: wtfpl
 
-Previous opinion: <@eval macros.titlelink('/writings/non-copylefted')@>.
-
 * Licensing on metanohi
 
 I usually just use the Do What The Fuck You Want To Public License, Version 2
@@ -45,7 +43,21 @@ I guess that some people consider e.g. CC BY-SA a recognizable symbol and that
 its law stuff is secondary.  I can follow that thought, but I just got tired of
 it.
 
-Some might not want to integrate WTFPL code into their project, but fuck them.
+Some might not want to integrate WTFPL code into their project, but fuck them
+(okay, in practice I'll probably just relicense to BSD2 or BSD3 if necessary).
 
 All that being said, I will work in any free software and free culture project
-no matter what license they use.  WTFPL is just for my junk.
+no matter what license they use.  WTFPL is just for my own junk.
+
+
+* Copyright in general
+
+I'm not a fan of copyright as it is right now, but I don't know if it should be
+removed alltogether (if that was even possible...).  I think it would be nice if
+copyright was only for commercial use.
+
+
+* Previously
+
+I used to have a lot of text about this, but I've come to just not care.  It's
+all on git if you want to read it.

site/writings/non-copylefted.org

@@ -1,93 +0,0 @@
-#+title: My works, non-copylefted
-#&summary
-Why I don't use copyleft for my own works.
-#&
-#+startup: showall
-#+license: wtfpl
-
-#&+classes=warning
-This old opinion is somewhat verbose and, well, old.  See <@eval
-macros.titlelink('/writings/licensing')@> for my current opinion.  Why do I
-keep changing opinions?  Ugh...
-#&
-
-* My works, non-copylefted
-
-A few months ago, I went from using the GPL for most of my software to BSD3;
-read about it [[/writings/software-licenses][here]].  I chose to continue to use Creative Commons
-Attribution-ShareAlike for most of my non-software works.
-
-Now, I have chosen to stop copylefting my original works entirely.
-
-I do this not because of a change in my general view of copyleft, but because I
-don't see myself ever using the legal benefits of copyleft; I can still
-understand why someone would choose to use copyleft to challenge copyright,
-fighting fire with fire, but it's just not something I would do.
-
-The power of copyright lies in whether people accept the terms that an author
-puts forth, and that, if the copyright is abused, the author uses the law to
-punish the abusers.  The same is essentially true for copyleft.  So, if I
-release a work under e.g. Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike, and someone
-derives a new work from that and does not copyleft that, I have the power to
-make them change that decision; I could contact them and try to convince them to
-be nice and free their work; I could contact them and say they *must* free the
-work because of the law; and I could even /sue/ them for not freeing their work!
-
-Until now I have, without really realizing it, used copyleft licenses only for
-the signal they send: If you create something new from something I have made
-free, please make your work free as well.  I never thought about what would
-happen and what I would do if someone broke the law and didn't follow my
-copyleft.  I probably should have thought about that at the beginning, but hey,
-I just wanted to make my works freely available and modifiable and hope that
-others would do the same!
-
-While I don't think it is wrong to use even lawsuits for upholding copyleft,
-it's not something I would /ever/ do.  If someone takes a copylefted work and
-abuses it, the community does not lose works; it simply does not gain them.
-Arguing against this argument would be the same as asserting that Hollywood
-loses money when people do not pay for digital, made-at-no-cost copies of their
-films -- a view I certainly don't agree with.
-
-Of course, I might never have to enter a lawsuit to uphold copyleft.  Maybe just
-asking the abuser would be enough in all cases.  But since this very page is
-public, the abuser would realize that I don't intend to sue in any case, so they
-might just ignore my request.  And I don't intend to manipulate people into
-making them think I would sue them.
-
-It's not my impression that there has been a lot of court cases involving
-copyleft; most of the license violations seem to be handled without the need for
-lawsuits, though I guess both lawyers and the threat of lawsuits are still quite
-used.  The FSF's [[https://www.fsf.org/licensing/compliance][Compliance Lab]] gives a good impression of the potential
-difficulty of fixing license violations.  I don't mind this compliance fixing,
-but in principle I am a bit against spending time making evil people relicense
-works when time could be spent making good people create new, free works.  In
-the long run, this will surely result in more good, free works, though forcing
-someone evil to relicence might be practical in the short run.
-
-In essence: Copyright is so hopelessly broken, and personally I'm not going to
-fight copyright with itself.  This is because I'm not going to depend its and
-copyleft's legal benefits, and that is because I would only depend on something
-broken if I found it /very/ necessary and not just useful in the short run.  I
-just want to share my works freely, and if someone who uses my works don't want
-to do that, I'll simply ignore them.  My walking away from copyleft makes my
-works usable by more people.
-
-#&img;url=/img/licenses/wtfpl.png,float=right
-
-So, from now on I'll use the [[http://www.wtfpl.net/][Do What The Fuck You Want To Public License (WTFPL)]]
-for all my original works, software and culture alike.  I don't think that the
-"fuck" in the license is a problem.  I also thought about using Creative Commons
-Zero, but even though [[http://wiki.creativecommons.org/CC0_FAQ][it can be used for software]], [[http://opensource.org/licenses/index.html][OSI has not approved it]]
-because of [[http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2012-February/thread.html][a patent clause]] ([[https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#CC0][FSF has approved it]], and it's also DFSG-free), so it
-might be unpractical.  WTFPL has been approved by the FSF.  [[http://opensource.org/minutes20090304][OSI rejected it]], but
-that's because they didn't consider it a license and not because they disagreed
-with any of the (1) clauses in the WTFPL, so I don't think using the WTFPL will
-pose any practical problems.  I'll still contribute to copyleft works, though I
-might mention this URL.
-
-I was a bit inspired by [[http://blog.ninapaley.com/2013/01/18/ahimsa-sita-sings-the-blues-now-cc-0-public-domain/][Nina Paley's change to CC 0 from CC BY-SA]].  I think her
-story is scary.
-
-My first copylefted program to be un-copylefted is the generator for this
-website which used to be under the AGPL.  I'll relicense the rest of my works on
-a need-to-basis (there are so many, and I have other stuff to do).