Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   Ennui (iwillbite@whinge.town)'s status on Saturday, 17-Aug-2024 03:33:31 JST Ennui
   I hope there’s a good fedi app for iPhone sooner or later.
   
   I’ve been suffering for years
   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Saturday, 17-Aug-2024 03:33:30 JST 翠星石

     in reply to
     @iwillbite Have you considered browsing fedi with a real computer?
   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Saturday, 17-Aug-2024 05:34:32 JST 翠星石

     in reply to

     • Sally
     @sally >Even if they managed to stick to the license by letter it would be a similar case as with TiVO
     The GPLv2 doesn't in fact allow tivotization.
     
     The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the ***executable***.
     
     If the software does not execute - it isn't an executable - end of story.
     
     
     The FSF just didn't want to deal with retarded judges in court who cannot grasp the concept of an executable, thus released the GPLv3 and also fixed many other discovered bugs.
     
     To this day, the problem of intentional mis-interpretation of the GPLv2 only really exists in Linux, as those developers are against the users freedom and actually encourage the misinterpretation.
     
     When it come to the freedom offered by the GPL-family, the only possible way to block the freedom is to license under the GPLv2-only (as licensing under a proprietary or pushover license is ineffective) and then to never enforce your license - which is what Linus intentionally does.
   • Embed this notice
     Sally (sally@shitposter.world)'s status on Saturday, 17-Aug-2024 05:34:33 JST Sally

     in reply to

     • 翠星石
     • :suya:
     @newt
     @Suiseiseki @iwillbite
     
     > No, it doesn't. You may run telegram client code as you wish, for any purpose.
     
     The sole purpose of their clients is to connect to their servers so you can communicate with other people. If the API rejects your requests then it can't fulfill that purpose and therefore it breaks freedom 0, hence why it can't be GPLed.
     
     Even if they managed to stick to the license by letter it would be a similar case as with TiVO where the developer is a bad actor that tries to abuse or restrict software freedom by spirit, being de-facto proprietary, which is what Telegram does regardless of case.
     
     
     > Metatext code is under GPL and the binaries in appstore are produced from that code. You can download the code for any version of Metatext from GitHub at any time.
     
     Given the client is intended to be used to connect to Fediverse servers it's way less likely that goes against GPL by spirit but there's plenty of ways to enforce TiVOization or proprietary jails, Apple is an offender on both of those.
     
     Apple software being under copyleft licensing is devs lying themselves at best or a maliciously deceiving move at worst (like with Telegram clients).
     
     
     > I have no idea what "the binary is not under GPL" even means, the entire phrase is a complete non sequitur.
     
     Apple forbids copyleft software distribution, so whatever software you see that regularly is copyleft/GPL distributed through their "store" is licensed under a different licensing. One similar example of multi-licensing is VSCode.
     
     There's also the possible scenario where the dev/s reached an agreement to allow Metatex to be distributed under GPL on their "store", or Apple doesn't care to enforce that policy, or the dev breaks their policy which would be based, or both.
   • Embed this notice
     Sally (sally@shitposter.world)'s status on Saturday, 17-Aug-2024 05:34:34 JST Sally

     in reply to

     • 翠星石
     • :suya:
     @newt
     @Suiseiseki @iwillbite
     
     
     I say it probably is GPL because I've seen instances where code is licensed under GPL but breaks one or multiple freedoms defined in terms which makes it ineligible for GPL.
     
     The best example is Telegram, Telegram is like a piece of dogshit sticking in my boot that I can't get rid of, they keep claiming their clients are free software but they have API key nonsense (keys that can only he provided by them and are revocable at any given time) at compile time for the client to be able to connect to the central servers. That's essentially a form of DRM and against freedom 0, so the license is void.
   • Embed this notice
     :suya: (newt@stereophonic.space)'s status on Saturday, 17-Aug-2024 05:34:34 JST :suya:

     in reply to

     • 翠星石
     • Sally
     @sally @Suiseiseki @iwillbite
     >The best example is Telegram, Telegram is like a piece of dogshit sticking in my boot that I can't get rid of, they keep claiming their clients are free software but they have API key nonsense (keys that can only he provided by them and are revocable at any given time) at compile time for the client to be able to connect to the central servers. That's essentially a form of DRM and against freedom 0, so the license is void.
     
     >The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0).
     
     No, it doesn't. You may run telegram client code as you wish, for any purpose.
     
     Metatext code is under GPL and the binaries in appstore are produced from that code. You can download the code for any version of Metatext from GitHub at any time. I have no idea what "the binary is not under GPL" even means, the entire phrase is a complete non sequitur.
   • Embed this notice
     :suya: (newt@stereophonic.space)'s status on Saturday, 17-Aug-2024 05:34:35 JST :suya:

     in reply to

     • 翠星石
     • Sally
     @sally @Suiseiseki @iwillbite
     >The code on that repo is GPL (probably), but the compiled binary that you buy and download through the store is not GPL.
     
     You're losing me in this asinine nonsense.
   • Embed this notice
     Sally (sally@shitposter.world)'s status on Saturday, 17-Aug-2024 05:34:36 JST Sally

     in reply to

     • 翠星石
     • :suya:
     @newt
     @Suiseiseki @iwillbite
     
     
     The code on that repo is GPL (probably), but the compiled binary that you buy and download through the store is not GPL.
     
     Developers can and do release software under multiple licenses, Apple imposes that all the software distributed through their "store" cannot be copyleft, therefore the build distributed by them cannot be GPL, else it wouldn't be there.
   • Embed this notice
     :suya: (newt@stereophonic.space)'s status on Saturday, 17-Aug-2024 05:34:37 JST :suya:

     in reply to

     • 翠星石
     • Sally
     @sally @Suiseiseki @iwillbite what do you mean "not GPL"? The code is there, it's under GPL.
   • Embed this notice
     Sally (sally@shitposter.world)'s status on Saturday, 17-Aug-2024 05:34:38 JST Sally

     in reply to

     • 翠星石
     • :suya:
     @newt
     @Suiseiseki @iwillbite
     
     The one distributed directly via the iOS store is not GPL.
     
     Why? Because Apple has a policy of not allowing copyleft software distribution through their dogshit app store.
   • Embed this notice
     Sally (sally@shitposter.world)'s status on Saturday, 17-Aug-2024 05:34:39 JST Sally

     in reply to

     • 翠星石
     @Suiseiseki
     @iwillbite
     
     If I was a dev I'd make Apple users pay 100 bucks to buy a fedi client binary.
     
     You want source code? Oh sorry, your brand doesn't allow GPL protected software on their "app store", try getting the client on a platform that doesn't bully everyone involved with it.
   • Embed this notice
     :suya: (newt@stereophonic.space)'s status on Saturday, 17-Aug-2024 05:34:39 JST :suya:

     in reply to

     • 翠星石
     • Sally
     @sally @Suiseiseki @iwillbite metatext (fedi ios client) was GPLv3, as is its fork
     
     https://github.com/metabolist/metatext
   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Saturday, 17-Aug-2024 05:45:16 JST 翠星石

     in reply to

     • Sally
     @sally The so called "loophole" goes against both the spirit and the letter.
     
     The letters say quite specifically "executable", not "object code that doesn't execute".
   • Embed this notice
     Sally (sally@shitposter.world)'s status on Saturday, 17-Aug-2024 05:45:17 JST Sally

     in reply to

     • 翠星石
     @Suiseiseki
     
     > The GPLv2 doesn't in fact allow tivotization
     
     
     None of the licenses do, TiVOIzation is just a loophole to abuse the license to go against software freedom by spirit rather than letter.
   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Saturday, 17-Aug-2024 05:59:17 JST 翠星石

     in reply to

     • Sally
     @sally >What if it executes but does nothing more than return 1 and stops because the server rejects connection? And the server is completely proprietary, mind you, you can't host your own.
     That isn't really relevant to the concept of tivotization, which is hardware that refuses to execute binaries that aren't signed by the OEM.
     
     The GPLv2 doesn't set out any requirements when it comes to accessing a remote server.
     
     With proper free software, you don't even want to use someone else's malicious server - you want to to use your own server, or one hosted by a trustworthy party.
     
     The GPLv3 does try to work around that problem by stating; "Access to a network may be denied when the modification itself materially and adversely affects the operation of the network or violates the rules and protocols for communication across the network."
   • Embed this notice
     Sally (sally@shitposter.world)'s status on Saturday, 17-Aug-2024 05:59:18 JST Sally

     in reply to

     • 翠星石
     @Suiseiseki
     
     > The letters say quite specifically "executable", not "object code that doesn't execute".
     
     What if it executes but does nothing more than return 1 and stops because the server rejects connection? And the server is completely proprietary, mind you, you can't host your own.