Conversation
Notices
-
Embed this notice
Haelwenn /элвэн/ :triskell: (lanodan@queer.hacktivis.me)'s status on Tuesday, 16-Apr-2024 21:01:08 JST Haelwenn /элвэн/ :triskell: Love how the BSD-2-Clause has a no-warranty-screaming section that's visibly longer than the rest of the license. -
Embed this notice
Haelwenn /элвэн/ :triskell: (lanodan@queer.hacktivis.me)'s status on Tuesday, 16-Apr-2024 21:07:11 JST Haelwenn /элвэн/ :triskell: no-warranty being in screaming caps being a thing that I quite find kind of interesting because the way too common pure lawyer stuff tends to be written in tiny ass low-contrast lawyer-font. -
Embed this notice
翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Tuesday, 16-Apr-2024 21:21:47 JST 翠星石 @lanodan When the license is shorter than the no-warranty section, clearly the license misses too many important things and is not suitable for usage. -
Embed this notice
Haelwenn /элвэн/ :triskell: (lanodan@queer.hacktivis.me)'s status on Tuesday, 16-Apr-2024 21:25:59 JST Haelwenn /элвэн/ :triskell: @Suiseiseki Oh no someone is going to make a proprietary version of 100 lines of C that I've written once 2 years ago and haven't touched since because I haven't needed to.
You're like an IRC bot where any mention of license is "it's not GPL so it's crap". -
Embed this notice
翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Tuesday, 16-Apr-2024 22:00:19 JST 翠星石 @lanodan >someone is going to make a proprietary version of 100 lines of C that I've written once 2 years ago
Yes, this happens very often if the software is usable and the license allows it.
>You're like an IRC bot where any mention of license is "it's not GPL so it's crap".
Thanks for the compliment.
Nowadays I prefer the AGPLv3-or-later most of all. -
Embed this notice
Haelwenn /элвэн/ :triskell: (lanodan@queer.hacktivis.me)'s status on Tuesday, 16-Apr-2024 22:05:41 JST Haelwenn /элвэн/ :triskell: @Suiseiseki And what do you think is going to happen to me or even the wider FOSS community if there's a proprietary version of it?
Absolutely nothing, which is why it's under BSD-2-Clause, it could even be under WTFPL/CC0-1.0/… but I'd rather have the attribution.
I'd entirely put it under a copyleft license if a proprietary modification could ever be a net-negative.
But copyleft licences can also end up a complete net-negative, for example due to incompatibilities. -
Embed this notice
翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Tuesday, 16-Apr-2024 22:50:18 JST 翠星石 @lanodan >what do you think is going to happen to me or even the wider FOSS community if there's a proprietary version of it?
GNU/Jihad against "FOSS"!!!
You would have written proprietary software without getting paid and aided and abetted a freedom thief to cause people to lose part of their freedom (which could possibly even blow back onto you), which isn't "absolutely nothing".
>copyleft licences can also end up a complete net-negative, for example due to incompatibilities.
License incompatibilities are always intentionally caused by those who make the explicit choice to make an incompatibility by licensing say GPLv2-only or GPLv3-only, or by making a terrible license choice like selecting the CDDLv1 instead one of the many better compatible licenses that have been available for decades.
The GPLv3 has been a thing for 17+ years now, yet people can't help but to be incompatible with it.
Even license-incompatibilities aren't a negative, as the software itself always remains free, although certain positive things may not be possible unless external developers start licensing properly. -
Embed this notice
Haelwenn /элвэн/ :triskell: (lanodan@queer.hacktivis.me)'s status on Wednesday, 17-Apr-2024 01:46:47 JST Haelwenn /элвэн/ :triskell: @xianc78 Maybe you should read the no-warranty close because I definitely do not want to distribute any software without one, specially given the bullshit happening around software "supply chains". -
Embed this notice
xianc78@gameliberty.club's status on Wednesday, 17-Apr-2024 01:46:50 JST xianc78 @lanodan This is why the Tiny License is the best permissive license, if you want attribution.
https://copyfree.org/content/standard/licenses/tiny/license.txt
-
Embed this notice
Haelwenn /элвэн/ :triskell: (lanodan@queer.hacktivis.me)'s status on Wednesday, 17-Apr-2024 01:56:03 JST Haelwenn /элвэн/ :triskell: @xianc78 I wouldn't be surprised that you'd need to much more explicitly deny it.
Laws often are written by the same people as the ones in deeply proprietary corporations.
Like EUPL-1.2 has even got "This disclaimer of warranty is an essential part of the Licence and a condition for the grant of any rights to the Work." and I'd be surprised if there wasn't a good reason for them to add it. -
Embed this notice
xianc78@gameliberty.club's status on Wednesday, 17-Apr-2024 01:56:04 JST xianc78 @lanodan Tiny License does have a no warranty clause. It's just one sentence.
"There is no warranty."
-
Embed this notice