Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Wednesday, 28-Feb-2024 21:05:26 JST 翠星石

   • Dushman
   @dushman >cuz it simplifies talking about this stuff
   That reasoning doesn't exactly work out.
   
   How so little people know what "open source" is intended to mean (and think it means source-available) and how difficult it is to actually explain the 10 requirements and have people understand, actually makes it far more complicated to talk about licensing, unless you intention to make people very confused about licensing (which seems to have been realized and is being exploited by corporate interests).
   
   Simplifications have their place, but not when the simplification gives people the complete wrong idea.
   • Embed this notice
     Neko McCatface v2023 :verified::makemeneko: (roboneko@bae.st)'s status on Saturday, 02-Mar-2024 20:41:59 JST Neko McCatface v2023 :verified::makemeneko:

     in reply to

     • Dushman
     @Suiseiseki @dushman so few people know what "free software" is intended to mean. they all too commonly believe that it refers to something proprietary which you don't have to pay for :smug10: unless your intention is to make people very confused about licensing you ought to avoid that wording
     
     simplifications have their place, but not when they give people the wrong idea. that's why I strongly advocate for the terminology "GNUtard compatible software" which leaves absolutely no room for ambiguity
     ?? Humpleupagus ?? likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     ?? Humpleupagus ?? (humpleupagus@eveningzoo.club)'s status on Saturday, 02-Mar-2024 20:44:46 JST ?? Humpleupagus ??

     in reply to

     • Neko McCatface v2023 :verified::makemeneko:
     • Dushman
     If Yuzu loses, I believe any license they supposedly had would be unenforceable, so fork away. 🤷♂️
   • Embed this notice
     King_Dan_Duke_of_Aquitaine (normans_are_not_french@norwoodzero.net)'s status on Saturday, 02-Mar-2024 20:54:59 JST King_Dan_Duke_of_Aquitaine

     in reply to

     • Neko McCatface v2023 :verified::makemeneko:
     • ?? Humpleupagus ??
     • Dushman
     There is Ryujinx too once the tech is out in the wild there is fuck all they can do to stop people using or updating or forking it
     ?? Humpleupagus ?? likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     ?? Humpleupagus ?? (humpleupagus@eveningzoo.club)'s status on Saturday, 02-Mar-2024 20:58:32 JST ?? Humpleupagus ??

     in reply to

     • Neko McCatface v2023 :verified::makemeneko:
     • Dushman
     • King_Dan_Duke_of_Aquitaine
     I don't get why they haven't gone after archive.org for hosting sets of games. You'd think that would be an easy target since they just lost the suit against the publishers.
   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Monday, 04-Mar-2024 20:43:13 JST 翠星石

     in reply to

     • ?? Humpleupagus ??
     @Humpleupagus If the company that carries out most Yuzu development loses, that has no impact on the project license.
     
     Under copyright law, the only thing that gives permission to distribute, modify and share modified versions is a copyright license - so if the GPLv3 is unenforcable, then you have NO permission to share and/or modify the software - so you CANNOT fork - the GPLv3 is the thing you need to be able to fork.
     
     Ninty is likely to lose, as they're going up against a business that's making a fair amount of money with dubious claims - which is a kind of party that are usually allowed to win (as freedom won't increase by a meaningful amount if that kind of party wins), just like what happened previously with game patcher sellers and those who released 3rd part titles for the gameboy.
   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Monday, 04-Mar-2024 21:00:38 JST 翠星石

     in reply to

     • Neko McCatface v2023 :verified::makemeneko:
     @roboneko >does it not get the job done?
     Mostly, but not the whole way there, which is just sad.
     
     It's like settling for 90% freedom instead of 100% freedom.
     
     >please elaborate
     "The laws of most jurisdictions throughout the world automatically confer
     exclusive Copyright and Related Rights (defined below) upon the creator
     and subsequent owner(s) (each and all, an "owner") of an original work of
     authorship and/or a database (each, a "Work")."
     
     Legally copyright is temporary - therefore it is impossible to own copyright, you can rather only hold it.
     
     Extra-scummy lawyers and corporations a few decades ago started to refer to copyright holders as owner as a wonderful work of propaganda and repeating such propaganda is a big mistake.
     
     Also, jurisdictions confer copyright onto the works of authors, not mythical "creator" deities (too bad businesses usually get their hands on the copyright and become the copyright holder in the end).
     
     >... of course not? it is intended solely for assigning copyright to the public domain. messing with patents would be entirely outside of scope
     If the intention was to solely to handle copyright, it wouldn't "go out of scope" by mentioning patents - but instead it explicit refuses to grant patent licenses; "a. No trademark or patent rights held by Affirmer are waived, abandoned, surrendered, licensed or otherwise affected by this document." (trademarks aren't a problem for software, as you can just trivially append not- to the front and any trademark issues vanish).
     
     Unfortunately, patents can be used as a weapon to turn what would otherwise be source code in the public domain into proprietary software and the CC0 does nothing about this, therefore it's not suitable for software.
     
     >they all too commonly believe that it refers to something proprietary which you don't have to pay for unless your intention is to make people very confused about licensing you ought to avoid that wording
     Yes, most people have fallen for the proprietary tricks used in marketing, but if you drive the point home hard that free means freedom and has nothing to do with gratis, they get what you mean and don't make the same mistake again.
     
     People do not and will not understand licensing correctly unless you explain it in the terms of freedom.
     
     
     At least try to come up with actually insulting name calling.
   • Embed this notice
     ?? Humpleupagus ?? (humpleupagus@eveningzoo.club)'s status on Monday, 04-Mar-2024 21:03:42 JST ?? Humpleupagus ??

     in reply to
     If they lose, a court cannot enforce the license or the copyright, because both would be illegal. A court cannot enforce an illegality.
   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Monday, 04-Mar-2024 21:22:15 JST 翠星石

     in reply to

     • ?? Humpleupagus ??
     @Humpleupagus You don't seem to have actually read the facts of the case.
     
     It isn't a copyright complaint - it's a DMCA complaint about circumvention of digital handcuffs.
     
     If the circumvention claim is awarded, it may result it being illegal to possess or distribute such "circumventing" software, without any copyright getting invalidated or becoming unenforceable (yes, the DMCA is that bad) as in other jurisdictions, the license is still entirely valid.
     
     It would still technically be possible to enforce a GPLv3 infringement case even the banned jurisdiction, as that infringement would only be doubly illegal.
   • Embed this notice
     ?? Humpleupagus ?? (humpleupagus@eveningzoo.club)'s status on Monday, 04-Mar-2024 21:30:10 JST ?? Humpleupagus ??

     in reply to
     You don't seem to understand Article III of the U.S. Constitution. A plaintiff must have standing, this means that it must have an injury in fact and the court must be capable of providing a remedy. What injury would yuzu have if a court determined that the distribution or possession of their software was illegal and someone later forked it and distributed it (I note that such a decision would be res judicata as against yuzu in any such case)? What remedy could a court provide in such a case.
     
     I'll wait here for your cogent analysis of Article III's case or controversy analysis. SMFH. 😒
   • Embed this notice
     ?? Humpleupagus ?? (humpleupagus@eveningzoo.club)'s status on Monday, 04-Mar-2024 21:35:30 JST ?? Humpleupagus ??

     in reply to

     • Alexander Fog ✝️ :nv:
     Based.
   • Embed this notice
     Alexander Fog ✝️ :nv: (alex_fog@nicecrew.digital)'s status on Monday, 04-Mar-2024 21:35:31 JST Alexander Fog ✝️ :nv:

     in reply to

     • ?? Humpleupagus ??
     i got your remedy humps.