Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   :ihavenomouth: (inginsub@clubcyberia.co)'s status on Wednesday, 30-Aug-2023 01:36:09 JST :ihavenomouth:
   can software be free if it's a hand-written binary and the source code doesn't exist?
   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Wednesday, 30-Aug-2023 01:36:08 JST 翠星石

     in reply to
     @Inginsub The source code is the source code no matter the form.
     
     If you fire up GNU ed and write straight machine code, the resulting executable is the source code and also happens to be directly executable as well.
     
     Such binary would be difficult to modify in practice, but such is free software as long as it's suitably licensed.
     
     
     Of course, people are going to read the above, write some source code that produces a 50MiB binary and claim that the executable is the source code.
   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Wednesday, 30-Aug-2023 01:42:19 JST 翠星石

     in reply to
     @Inginsub Please read the GPLv3 immediately: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html or at least read the quick guide: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3.html
     
     All licenses in the GPL family allow you to use the software for any purpose, modify it and share it modified or unmodified, even for commercial purposes - they just doesn't give you the *power* to restrict others.
     
     
     For a binary released into the public domain, there is no copyright, so the GPLv3 wouldn't apply for example.
     
     GPLv3: "Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.", so you can hardcode it unmodified in a public domain binary, resulting in an aggregate, with a public domain binary alongside a copy of the GPLv3.
   • Embed this notice
     binkle (binkle@clubcyberia.co)'s status on Wednesday, 30-Aug-2023 01:42:20 JST binkle

     in reply to
     @Inginsub what if you hand wrote the ascii for a proprietary license into the binary
   • Embed this notice
     :ihavenomouth: (inginsub@clubcyberia.co)'s status on Wednesday, 30-Aug-2023 01:42:20 JST :ihavenomouth:

     in reply to

     • binkle
     @binkle imagine hardcoding a restrictive license like GPL into a binary released into public domain (I might do that)
   • Embed this notice
     meso (meso@the.asbestos.cafe)'s status on Wednesday, 30-Aug-2023 01:46:39 JST meso

     in reply to

     • 翠星石
     @Suiseiseki @Inginsub YOu should read the GPL NOW!!!!
   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Wednesday, 30-Aug-2023 01:46:39 JST 翠星石

     in reply to

     • meso
     @meso I've done so like 20 times already, but I guess I could read the GPLv3 again tomorrow.
   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Wednesday, 30-Aug-2023 01:54:40 JST 翠星石

     in reply to
     @Inginsub >I’m not autistic enough to read that wall of text
     It's light reading and not even a wall of text, but I guess it's a problem if you have a 5 second attention span.
     
     >but GPL can’t be used with code written under normal licenses,
     By "normal licenses", do you mean proprietary software licenses?
     
     Eliminating such degeneracy is the thing the GPL family weaponry was expertly crafted towards perfection for.
     
     Every effort was put into making the GPLv3 compatible with other free software licenses, which are listed here: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLCompatibleLicenses
     
     The GPLv3 is not Mr. nice guy, it says no to conflicting terms in other licenses that prevent freedom - but really, license incompatibilities are really the fault of the other licenses and not the GPLv3.
     
     >which is a severe restriction on my freedom
     You have the freedom to use the software for any purpose and as a result, you can combine with software under whatever software under whatever licenses for your own personal use.
     
     When it comes to conveying that software to other parties, the GPLv3's requirements for conveying need to be met though.
     
     
     The GPL family doesn't restrict freedom at all, it restricts the power to take away others freedom, which is a good thing to happen no matter how hard proprietary software developers seethe.
   • Embed this notice
     :ihavenomouth: (inginsub@clubcyberia.co)'s status on Wednesday, 30-Aug-2023 01:54:41 JST :ihavenomouth:

     in reply to

     • 翠星石
     @Suiseiseki I’m not autistic enough to read that wall of text but GPL can’t be used with code written under normal licenses, which is a severe restriction on my freedom
   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Wednesday, 30-Aug-2023 02:01:27 JST 翠星石

     in reply to
     @Inginsub So you've lost the freedom argument and I've determined your proprietary desires, so you've resorted to calling my arguments deceptive?
     
     Feel free to point out any incorrect statement I made.
   • Embed this notice
     :ihavenomouth: (inginsub@clubcyberia.co)'s status on Wednesday, 30-Aug-2023 02:01:28 JST :ihavenomouth:

     in reply to

     • 翠星石
     @Suiseiseki sophistry
   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Wednesday, 30-Aug-2023 02:06:01 JST 翠星石

     in reply to

     • Johnny Peligro
     @mischievoustomato Yes, you have the freedom to select a cuck license like the 3-clause BSD, but why would you do that?
     
     If you mean 3-clause BSD code from other people, don't forget to comply with the redistribution terms, so you don't infringe copyright law (although BSD licensers seem to actually enjoy being cucked by those who manage to even infringe the 3-clause BSD).
     
     
     A number of businesses decided to infringe copyrights held by the FSF in the past, lets just say it didn't end well at all for any of those.
   • Embed this notice
     Johnny Peligro (mischievoustomato@marsey.moe)'s status on Wednesday, 30-Aug-2023 02:06:02 JST Johnny Peligro

     in reply to

     • 翠星石
     @Suiseiseki @Inginsub i will just use bsd3 or violate gpl code
   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Wednesday, 30-Aug-2023 02:07:50 JST 翠星石

     in reply to

     • Johnny Peligro
     @mischievoustomato Let me get this straight.
     
     Proprietary software licenses full of the most supreme deception and proprietary terms aren't sophistry, while the GPLv3, which is has understandable terms, and allows you to do anything you want to the software except for proprietizing it is sophistry?
   • Embed this notice
     Johnny Peligro (mischievoustomato@marsey.moe)'s status on Wednesday, 30-Aug-2023 02:07:51 JST Johnny Peligro

     in reply to

     • 翠星石
     @Inginsub @Suiseiseki essentially what the whole gpl thing is
   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Wednesday, 30-Aug-2023 02:11:49 JST 翠星石

     in reply to

     • Johnny Peligro
     @mischievoustomato The Chinese don't seem to use much GNU software in violation of the license in their products, as they know most of those are going to get seized at the border.
     
     
     As for the kernel, Linux, they know that the Linux developers only ever enforce the GPLv2 in ways to prevent freedom and refuse to enforce it in ways to defend freedom, so that's fair game.
   • Embed this notice
     Johnny Peligro (mischievoustomato@marsey.moe)'s status on Wednesday, 30-Aug-2023 02:11:50 JST Johnny Peligro

     in reply to

     • 翠星石
     @Suiseiseki me and my chinese allies disagree
   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Wednesday, 30-Aug-2023 02:12:31 JST 翠星石

     in reply to
     @Inginsub Now, I'm the one arguing in bad faith.
     
     Very nice gaslighting.
   • Embed this notice
     :ihavenomouth: (inginsub@clubcyberia.co)'s status on Wednesday, 30-Aug-2023 02:12:32 JST :ihavenomouth:

     in reply to

     • 翠星石
     @Suiseiseki you’re either arguing in bad faith or are too autistic to see it
   • Embed this notice
     þernia (pernia@cum.salon)'s status on Wednesday, 30-Aug-2023 02:17:03 JST þernia

     in reply to

     • 翠星石
     • Johnny Peligro
     @mischievoustomato @Inginsub @Suiseiseki gpl code has always been meant to be violated. liscencing your software under the gpl is like dressing it in a miniskirt and parading it in a dark alleyway
     Sexy Moon likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Wednesday, 30-Aug-2023 02:20:10 JST 翠星石

     in reply to

     • lamp
     @lamp I'm sorry, that's not how it works.
     
     It's not a restriction of freedom to not go out of your way to authorize the exercise of power in a way that reduces freedom.
     
     The way copyright law works is to allow a licenser to provide either permissions to do nothing (All Rights Reserved) or permissions for other activities.
     
     The GPLv3 authorizes all legitimate software related conveying activities.
     
     If you don't like the distribution terms of the GPLv3, that's fine, you may reject it, but you end up with the default "All Rights Reserved" terms which doesn't allow the exercising of power by other developers in the first place - if you have a problem with that, bring it up with the government.
     
     
     You seem to be arguing that proprietary software is free, as the developer gets all the freedom.
   • Embed this notice
     lamp (lamp@kitty.haus)'s status on Wednesday, 30-Aug-2023 02:20:11 JST lamp

     in reply to

     • 翠星石
     @Suiseiseki @inginsub restricting power = restricting freedom
   • Embed this notice
     :ihavenomouth: (inginsub@clubcyberia.co)'s status on Wednesday, 30-Aug-2023 02:24:13 JST :ihavenomouth:

     in reply to

     • 翠星石
     @Suiseiseki you’re literally gaslighting people into thinking that GPL is somehow free
   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Wednesday, 30-Aug-2023 02:24:13 JST 翠星石

     in reply to
     @Inginsub the GPLv3 is specifically written to be a free software license and respect the 4 freedoms; https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html#four-freedoms
     
     If the GPLv3 wasn't free, I'm sure you'll be able to quote excerpts of the GPLv3 which stops any of the 4 freedoms from being carried out.
     
     But you won't be able to, as it's a free software licenses.
   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Wednesday, 30-Aug-2023 02:28:21 JST 翠星石

     in reply to

     • Johnny Peligro
     @mischievoustomato A law against murder is a restriction of freedom to murder, but it's pretty damn obvious that murdering someone is not something that should be allowed, as it leads to a reduction in freedom due to someone being killed.
     
     Not allowing software to be proprietized is the same - it's pretty damn obvious that proprietization of software leads to a reduction in freedom.
     
     As I mentioned, such restriction isn't even up to the GPLv3 - it's up to the government.
     
     You should complain to the government that you're not allowed to relicensed "All Rights Reserved" software to under your own terms if you have a problem rather than blame the GPLv3.
   • Embed this notice
     Johnny Peligro (mischievoustomato@marsey.moe)'s status on Wednesday, 30-Aug-2023 02:28:23 JST Johnny Peligro

     in reply to

     • 翠星石
     • lamp
     @Suiseiseki @lamp but it is a restriction of freedom
   • Embed this notice
     :ihavenomouth: (inginsub@clubcyberia.co)'s status on Wednesday, 30-Aug-2023 02:39:39 JST :ihavenomouth:

     in reply to

     • 翠星石
     @Suiseiseki am I free to re-license gcc under bsd3?
   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Wednesday, 30-Aug-2023 02:39:39 JST 翠星石

     in reply to
     @Inginsub No, but the same is true for the 3-clause BSD - as there's no clause that allows you to re-license to any other license.
     
     Why is the 3-clause BSD acceptable even thought it doesn't allow re-licensing, but the GPLv3 is unacceptable when it's the exact same in not allowing re-licensing?
     
     
     Could it be that your aim is to make a proprietary version of gcc by refusing to provide the source code, which the 3-clause BSD allows, but the GPLv3 does not?
     
     Such degenerate behavior needs to be eliminated.
   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Wednesday, 30-Aug-2023 02:42:18 JST 翠星石

     in reply to
     @Inginsub Please answer my questions.
     
     I want to know why it's okay for the 3-clause BSD to restrict freedom by not allowing for re-licensing.
   • Embed this notice
     :ihavenomouth: (inginsub@clubcyberia.co)'s status on Wednesday, 30-Aug-2023 02:42:19 JST :ihavenomouth:

     in reply to

     • 翠星石
     @Suiseiseki
     >No
     I know everything I need, thank you
   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Wednesday, 30-Aug-2023 02:48:42 JST 翠星石

     in reply to
     @Inginsub I'm not putting any words in your mouth, I'm simply asking questions and making predictions that you may deny.
     
     You proprietary software developers are all the same - you're always extremely entitled even though you've received software gratis and act all shocked when the free software community says no to actives that you don't allow on software under your own copyright.
   • Embed this notice
     :ihavenomouth: (inginsub@clubcyberia.co)'s status on Wednesday, 30-Aug-2023 02:48:43 JST :ihavenomouth:

     in reply to

     • 翠星石
     @Suiseiseki don’t put words in my mouth
   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Wednesday, 30-Aug-2023 02:49:22 JST 翠星石

     in reply to

     • 翠星石
     @Inginsub *activities that you don't allow yourself on software that you hold the copyright for.
   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Wednesday, 30-Aug-2023 02:50:35 JST 翠星石

     in reply to
     @Inginsub A prediction that hits home is not gaslighting.
     
     You could refuse my predictions, but you don't seem to be doing so, as it seems they're correct?
   • Embed this notice
     :ihavenomouth: (inginsub@clubcyberia.co)'s status on Wednesday, 30-Aug-2023 02:50:36 JST :ihavenomouth:

     in reply to

     • 翠星石
     @Suiseiseki gaslighting again
   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Wednesday, 30-Aug-2023 02:50:45 JST 翠星石

     in reply to
     @Inginsub A prediction that hits home is not gaslighting.
     
     You could refute my predictions, but you don't seem to be doing so, as it seems they're correct?
   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Wednesday, 30-Aug-2023 20:38:25 JST 翠星石

     in reply to

     • þernia
     @pernia The 3-clause BSD does restrict you from relicensing, as by default copyright law doesn't allow relicensing and the BSD-3 contains no clause that allows you to relicense.
     
     You seem to be confusing proprietizing and relicensing.
     
     The BSD-3 is less free than the GPLv3, as it places restrictions on running the software, which the GPLv3 doesn't require acceptance just to run the software.
   • Embed this notice
     þernia (pernia@cum.salon)'s status on Wednesday, 30-Aug-2023 20:38:27 JST þernia

     in reply to

     • 翠星石
     @Suiseiseki @Inginsub it implicitly allows relisencing because it never restricts you from it in the first place, while the GPL explicitly restricts you from relisencing
   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Friday, 01-Sep-2023 18:50:48 JST 翠星石

     in reply to

     • þernia
     @pernia >the only thing the bsd requires you to do is to keep a copy of a lisence.
     Incorrect.
     
     Copyright <YEAR> <COPYRIGHT HOLDER>
     
     Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
     
     1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
     
     2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
     
     3. Neither the name of the copyright holder nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission.
     
     THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS “AS IS” AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
     
     You need to include the copyright notice, the list of the conditions and the disclaimer in both the software and any documentation, plus also you're not permitted to use the name of the copyright holder in endorsements without permission.
     
     >you can add any lisence you want and supersede it (if its more restrictive, which it likely is).
     You're not authorized to supersede the BSD-3 under copyright law, but BSD-3 allows you to distribute in a binary only form under certain conditions, but you can add your own components to the software under a different license, just as long as that license doesn't conflict with the conditions of the BSD-3.
     
     You're authorized to make derivative works of GPLv3 software and release your changes under different licenses, just as long as the selected license and convenient method doesn't take freedom away.
     
     >why do you lie about a one-paragraph document? you think everyone is as retarded as you?
     As you can see above: "Redistribution and ****use**** ... are permitted provided that the following conditions are met"
     
     Do tell me how use doesn't include the running of the software.
     
     Meanwhile, in the GPLv3: ". Acceptance Not Required for Having Copies.You are not required to accept this License in order to receive or run a copy of the Program.".
     
     I specifically intended for people to read the 3-clause BSD and the GPLv3 and determine for themselves gives you more freedom when it comes to the running of the software.
   • Embed this notice
     þernia (pernia@cum.salon)'s status on Friday, 01-Sep-2023 18:50:51 JST þernia

     in reply to

     • 翠星石
     @Suiseiseki the only thing the bsd requires you to do is to keep a copy of a lisence. you can add any lisence you want and supersede it (if its more restrictive, which it likely is).
     >The BSD-3 is less free than the GPLv3, as it places restrictions on running the software, which the GPLv3 doesn't require acceptance just to run the software.
     why do you lie about a one-paragraph document? you think everyone is as retarded as you?