Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Thursday, 12-Sep-2024 18:55:25 JST 翠星石
   >Claims that the GPLv2 allows tivotization, while the GPLv3 doesn't.
   >Read the licenses
   >The GPLv2 forbids tivotization totally (although enforcing that in court is difficult) and the GPLv3 allows tivotization for stuff with commercial usages only, like medical equipment and voting machines.
   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Thursday, 12-Sep-2024 19:19:03 JST 翠星石

     in reply to

     • EdBoatConnoisseur
     @EdBoatConnoisseur He writes them and has a lawyer review them.
     
     During the writing process, he has probably read them enough times to know them by heart.
     
     
     Company lawyers at companies who want to use GNU and Linux seem to have the bad habit of never actually reading the GPLv2 or the GPLv3.
   • Embed this notice
     EdBoatConnoisseur (edboatconnoisseur@poa.st)'s status on Thursday, 12-Sep-2024 19:19:04 JST EdBoatConnoisseur

     in reply to

     @Suiseiseki does stallman even read his own licenses or only has a lawyer read em before going to sleep?

   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Thursday, 12-Sep-2024 19:23:50 JST 翠星石

     in reply to

     • EdBoatConnoisseur
     @EdBoatConnoisseur 11/10 bait, made me respond.
     
     Actually read the AGPLv3; https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html
     >Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, for material you add to a covered work, you may (if authorized by the copyright holders of that material) supplement the terms of this License with terms:
     > a) Disclaiming warranty or limiting liability differently from the terms of sections 15 and 16 of this License; or
     > b) Requiring preservation of specified reasonable legal notices or author attributions in that material or in the Appropriate Legal Notices displayed by works containing it; or
     > c) Prohibiting misrepresentation of the origin of that material, or requiring that modified versions of such material be marked in reasonable ways as different from the original version; or
     > d) Limiting the use for publicity purposes of names of licensors or authors of the material; or
     > e) Declining to grant rights under trademark law for use of some trade names, trademarks, or service marks; or
     > f) Requiring indemnification of licensors and authors of that material by anyone who conveys the material (or modified versions of it) with contractual assumptions of liability to the recipient, for any liability that these contractual assumptions directly impose on those licensors and authors.
     >All other non-permissive additional terms are considered "further restrictions" within the meaning of section 10. ****If the Program as you received it, or any part of it, contains a notice stating that it is governed by this License along with a term that is a further restriction, you may remove that term.****
   • Embed this notice
     EdBoatConnoisseur (edboatconnoisseur@poa.st)'s status on Thursday, 12-Sep-2024 19:23:51 JST EdBoatConnoisseur

     in reply to

     @Suiseiseki and that is why nothing beats AGPLv3+Nigger, the freest license ever concieved cuz ain't no kike touchin' dat to maek proprietary shitware cuh.

   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Thursday, 12-Sep-2024 23:21:35 JST 翠星石

     in reply to

     • karna :flipflop: :buffsuki:
     @karna You lack basic reading comprehension, but what do I expect?
     
     >falls under point b
     No it does not;
     - It is not a legal notice.
     - It is not an author attribution.
     
     >it is not non-permissive
     It is not a permission to append the string if you want to - rather it is demand you include a string and not remove it and is therefore a restriction instead of a permission.
   • Embed this notice
     karna :flipflop: :buffsuki: (karna@poa.st)'s status on Thursday, 12-Sep-2024 23:21:36 JST karna :flipflop: :buffsuki:

     in reply to

     • EdBoatConnoisseur

     @Suiseiseki @EdBoatConnoisseur Dont worry +NIGGER falls under point b, and furthermore, it is not non-permissive so the last point doesnt apply :hehcat: