Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   Maija (SPW Arc) (maija@shitposter.world)'s status on Friday, 05-Jul-2024 18:07:37 JST Maija (SPW Arc)
   >having to setup mongod
   >MongoDB 5.0 requires use of the AVX instruction set, available on select Intel and AMD processors.
   what would you bet the server lacks avx? because that's EXACTLY what happened
   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Friday, 05-Jul-2024 18:07:36 JST 翠星石

     in reply to
     @maija >Using a proprietary database you can't just recompile to use whatever instruction sets are available.
   • Embed this notice
     Maija (SPW Arc) (maija@shitposter.world)'s status on Friday, 05-Jul-2024 18:21:08 JST Maija (SPW Arc)

     in reply to

     • 翠星石
     @Suiseiseki mongodb is not proprietary its source code is entirely available
   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Friday, 05-Jul-2024 18:21:08 JST 翠星石

     in reply to
     @maija Merely because something is mostly source-available (aside from a few "optional" parts) doesn't mean it's not proprietary.
     
     The classic example of this is source code published without a license - all you can legally do is look at it - you can't share it or modify it and in some jurisdictions you can't even compile it, as compilation is seen to be modification.
     
     The "SSPL" is proprietary, as it's specifically designed to have unreasonable terms that are impossible to comply with, so MongoDB can go and extort people and businesses that use the software by demanding payments for an exception (not sure if it's one off or ongoing, but I figure it's the latter) and the receiving end has to either pay or stop using the software.
     
     Previously, MongoDB tried this extortion method with the AGPLv3, but it often failed as a lot of targets just compiled with the AGPLv3, so they took the AGPLv3 and modified it into a new license that is proprietary and figured rightly that people would assume that the resulting modification was a free license.
   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Friday, 05-Jul-2024 18:44:46 JST 翠星石

     in reply to
     @maija I'm in favor of freedom.
     
     You should be free to choose to not publish software and not make it do others computation and use it privately.
     
     It's only if one chooses to publish software, or make it do others computation that the source code under a free license should be available.
     
     If you have your own private editor you use to edit config files, you should not be forced to publish that editor merely because you used that editor to modify config files of some other software - but the SSPL is written to demand the publication of everything on such server and not just the relevant source code of the software.
   • Embed this notice
     Maija (SPW Arc) (maija@shitposter.world)'s status on Friday, 05-Jul-2024 18:44:47 JST Maija (SPW Arc)

     in reply to

     • 翠星石
     @Suiseiseki it is literally just the agpl v3 but with even more measures to require publishing of source code (as i recall, something you are in favor of)
   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Friday, 05-Jul-2024 19:53:36 JST 翠星石

     in reply to
     @maija There any many "bsd" licenses and they all suck and ignore many problems that face software, plus they don't defend freedom.
     
     To license non-trivial software under say BSD 3-clause is to write proprietary software without getting paid merely to ensure that more freedom gets taken from YOU (via proprietary blowback) and also other people as well.
     
     Anyone who puts any BSD license on software lights a beacon that they're a proprietary cuck and actually enjoys their and others freedom being taken away (if would be fine if it was just them, but it impacts other people) and proprietary software companies gladly oblige.
     
     
     Public domain is not a license and actually releasing something to the public domain is not easy - the only dedication that has a chance of being valid worldwide is the (currently incomplete); https://wpdd.info/
     
     Strangely, proprietary software companies tend to be less willing to use public domain software, even though the requirements drop down to pretty much nothing - but I guess the proprietary masters love that kick of infringing the BSD 3-clause's terms and therefore losing their license, but still having nothing happen.
   • Embed this notice
     Maija (SPW Arc) (maija@shitposter.world)'s status on Friday, 05-Jul-2024 19:53:37 JST Maija (SPW Arc)

     in reply to

     • 翠星石
     @Suiseiseki thats what ive been trying to tell you why bsd and public domain is better
   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Friday, 05-Jul-2024 23:22:26 JST 翠星石

     in reply to
     @maija I've seen a pile of evidence that such claim is extremely false.
     
     If someones takes the software and proprietizes it - that leads to a REDUCTION in freedom and that has happened to every single BSD so far multiple times.
     
     Do netflix used have more freedom? Do those controlled by the PS3 and PS4 have more freedom?
   • Embed this notice
     Maija (SPW Arc) (maija@shitposter.world)'s status on Friday, 05-Jul-2024 23:22:27 JST Maija (SPW Arc)

     in reply to

     • 翠星石
     @Suiseiseki bsd = more freedom
   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Sunday, 07-Jul-2024 13:53:27 JST 翠星石

     in reply to

     • LisPi
     @lispi314 >Honestly that shouldn't be a thing. It should just be immediate inclusion into Public Domain.
     Sure, but the problem with that is that many businesses would just end up removing copyright headers from free software, proprietizing it and claiming that the software they used was all under the public domain.
     
     If there was an arrangement where a government prosecutor was required to pursue every case of that happening, I would support software or any creative work published without a license being immediately included in the public domain.
   • Embed this notice
     LisPi (lispi314@udongein.xyz)'s status on Sunday, 07-Jul-2024 13:53:29 JST LisPi

     in reply to

     • 翠星石
     @Suiseiseki @maija > The classic example of this is source code published without a license - all you can legally do is look at it - you can't share it or modify it and in some jurisdictions you can't even compile it, as compilation is seen to be modification.
     
     Honestly that shouldn't be a thing. It should just be immediate inclusion into Public Domain.