Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   m (m@berserker.town)'s status on Wednesday, 15-May-2024 21:13:01 JST m

   • .˙ eepy · · ·

   @talviunelias just gonna drop this here https://github.com/nova-r/fediplug

   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Wednesday, 15-May-2024 21:12:55 JST 翠星石

     in reply to
     @m I have a special circle prepared for infidels like you in GNU/Hell.
     
     No, the AGPLv3 is not an "EULA", as it respects the users freedom and doesn't require acceptance merely to use the software;
     "You are not required to accept this License in order to receive or run a copy of the Program. Ancillary propagation of a covered work occurring solely as a consequence of using peer-to-peer transmission to receive a copy likewise does not require acceptance. However, nothing other than this License grants you permission to propagate or modify any covered work. These actions infringe copyright if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or propagating a covered work, you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so."
     
     The part about respecting the freedom of the users who do their computation via your server doesn't kick in unless you modify the software either;
     "Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, if you modify the Program, your modified version must prominently offer all users interacting with it remotely through a computer network (if your version supports such interaction) an opportunity to receive the Corresponding Source of your version by providing access to the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge, through some standard or customary means of facilitating copying of software. This Corresponding Source shall include the Corresponding Source for any work covered by version 3 of the GNU General Public License that is incorporated pursuant to the following paragraph."
     
     https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.html
     
     
     Meanwhile "EULA"s restrict copying, distribution, modification and sale of the software and even try to restrict the running of it.
   • Embed this notice
     m (m@berserker.town)'s status on Wednesday, 15-May-2024 21:12:57 JST m

     in reply to

     • 翠星石
     • :patchy_wat: fourty :patchy_peek:
     • meso
     • Dushman
     • .˙ eepy · · ·
     • meso [netzsphaere era]

     @f_o_u_r_t_y @talviunelias @dushman @meso@the.asbestos.cafe @meso@netzsphaere.xyz @Suiseiseki but like fr though, they went with agpl? that's not free software really lol it's legally a EULA

   • Embed this notice
     m (m@berserker.town)'s status on Wednesday, 15-May-2024 21:12:58 JST m

     in reply to

     • 翠星石
     • :patchy_wat: fourty :patchy_peek:
     • meso
     • Dushman
     • .˙ eepy · · ·
     • meso [netzsphaere era]

     @f_o_u_r_t_y @talviunelias it's free software, time to tag the regulars
     cc @dushman @meso@the.asbestos.cafe @meso@netzsphaere.xyz @Suiseiseki

   • Embed this notice
     :patchy_wat: fourty :patchy_peek: (f_o_u_r_t_y@shrine.moe)'s status on Wednesday, 15-May-2024 21:12:59 JST :patchy_wat: fourty :patchy_peek:

     in reply to

     • :patchy_wat: fourty :patchy_peek:
     • .˙ eepy · · ·
     @m @talviunelias tagging dushman in a linux thread and turning this on
   • Embed this notice
     :patchy_wat: fourty :patchy_peek: (f_o_u_r_t_y@shrine.moe)'s status on Wednesday, 15-May-2024 21:13:00 JST :patchy_wat: fourty :patchy_peek:

     in reply to

     • .˙ eepy · · ·
     @m @talviunelias LMAO
   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Wednesday, 15-May-2024 22:19:05 JST 翠星石

     in reply to
     @m The one that restricts you from being able to modify and propagate is the government.
     
     The AGPLv3 is a set of *permissions* that allow you to modify and propagate, just as long as you don't restrict the software yourself.
     
     You *may* do all the things you want with the software, as long as you respect the users freedom.
     
     
     Agreeing to an "EULA" takes away your freedom to modify and propagate even harder, rather than granting such.
   • Embed this notice
     m (m@berserker.town)'s status on Wednesday, 15-May-2024 22:19:06 JST m

     in reply to

     • 翠星石
     • :patchy_wat: fourty :patchy_peek:
     • meso
     • Dushman
     • .˙ eepy · · ·
     • meso [netzsphaere era]

     @Suiseiseki @f_o_u_r_t_y @talviunelias @dushman @meso@netzsphaere.xyz @meso@the.asbestos.cafe So you have to agree to the licenses restrictions with things like modification or propagation? Sounds a lot like a EULA my guy

   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Wednesday, 15-May-2024 23:55:18 JST 翠星石

     in reply to
     @m >Permissions? I thought this was supposed to be free software.
     Yes, because of the government, the license has to give permissions to exercise the four essential freedoms, as by default they're not granted.
     
     The many BSD licenses are less free as they imply that acceptance is required merely to run the software, miss handling the many, many problems that face software and also do nothing to prevent the software from becoming proprietary, so in practice most users of software released under a BSD license is in the form of proprietary malware, which is the exact opposite of freedom.
   • Embed this notice
     m (m@berserker.town)'s status on Wednesday, 15-May-2024 23:55:19 JST m

     in reply to

     • 翠星石
     • :patchy_wat: fourty :patchy_peek:
     • meso
     • Dushman
     • .˙ eepy · · ·
     • meso [netzsphaere era]

     @Suiseiseki @f_o_u_r_t_y @talviunelias @dushman @meso@netzsphaere.xyz @meso@the.asbestos.cafe Permissions? I thought this was supposed to be free software. Sounds about as free as a benevolent dictator. Good thing BSD licenses exist.

   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Thursday, 16-May-2024 00:20:18 JST 翠星石

     in reply to
     @m Making software that you're not a copyright holder of proprietary is not a right that any government grants or a right anyone should have.
     
     The way the AGPLv3 works doesn't use any restrictions, rather it grants permissions, but if you carry out the degenerate act of applying further restrictions, those permissions are no longer granted as you aren't following the license terms, so you have no license as therefore you are infringing copyright - if you have a problem with this - you need to bring this up with the government as to how you feel like their copyright schemes restricts your rights and see how far you get.
     
     
     Before you say anything about freedom, when it comes to freedom, only activities that increase the enjoyment of freedom are freedom.
     
     Turning free software proprietary *removes* the freedom for everyone but the developer and therefore is something diametrical to freedom.
   • Embed this notice
     m (m@berserker.town)'s status on Thursday, 16-May-2024 00:20:20 JST m

     in reply to

     • 翠星石
     • :patchy_wat: fourty :patchy_peek:
     • meso
     • Dushman
     • .˙ eepy · · ·
     • meso [netzsphaere era]

     @Suiseiseki @f_o_u_r_t_y @talviunelias @dushman @meso@netzsphaere.xyz @meso@the.asbestos.cafe >prevent the software from becoming proprietary
     isn't that just a restriction on my rights?

   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Thursday, 16-May-2024 00:40:59 JST 翠星石

     in reply to
     @m The infidelity only increases.
     
     >you admit your against the users having some rights? Making it restrictive
     The users deserve the 4 freedoms (https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html#four-freedoms) and also deserve the 4 freedoms unfettered by further restrictions.
     
     The so called "rights" to apply restrictions you write about have *not* been granted by the government.
     
     >if the government didn't have IP
     Yes, the government doesn't have imaginary property, as it doesn't exist; https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.en.html
     
     >then there should be no problem with me not sharing source code i modify
     There is no problem if the user wants to use the software privately without publishing it, as that's part of freedom.
     
     The government still denies even personal modifications without permission, but that permission is granted.
     
     There is one license that demands that the software is published for many private uses, which makes that license proprietary.
     
     
     If you mean you want to add malware and distribute only the binary and refuse to ever provide the source code, the government says that's not allowed, as their copyright law says that the license terms for the software must be followed.
   • Embed this notice
     m (m@berserker.town)'s status on Thursday, 16-May-2024 00:41:01 JST m

     in reply to

     • 翠星石
     • :patchy_wat: fourty :patchy_peek:
     • meso
     • Dushman
     • .˙ eepy · · ·
     • meso [netzsphaere era]

     @Suiseiseki @f_o_u_r_t_y @talviunelias @dushman @meso@netzsphaere.xyz @meso@the.asbestos.cafe
     So you admit your against the users having some rights? Making it restrictive
     because if the government didn't have IP then there should be no problem with me not sharing source code i modify

   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Thursday, 16-May-2024 00:54:04 JST 翠星石

     in reply to
     @m >only 4 freedoms? thats not very much
     Yes, more terms can be added like what the "Debian Free Software Guidelines" did, but that just made things more complicated and looser freedom-wise.
     
     >if IP doesn't exist
     Copyright exists - it makes no sense to lump that with completely different laws like patents, trade secrets, trademarks etc.
     
     This is required reading to break the proprietary spell; https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.en.html
     
     >i'm just going to ignore YOUR license
     I will find out and will sue your ass and you will be ordered to share the source code.
   • Embed this notice
     m (m@berserker.town)'s status on Thursday, 16-May-2024 00:54:05 JST m

     in reply to

     • 翠星石
     • :patchy_wat: fourty :patchy_peek:
     • meso
     • Dushman
     • .˙ eepy · · ·
     • meso [netzsphaere era]

     @Suiseiseki @f_o_u_r_t_y @talviunelias @dushman @meso@netzsphaere.xyz @meso@the.asbestos.cafe only 4 freedoms? thats not very much
     and if IP doesn't exist then i'm just going to ignore YOUR license and not share the source of my fork