Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   vulonkaaz v3.1 (vulonkaaz@v2.flyingcube.tech)'s status on Tuesday, 01-Oct-2024 03:52:14 JST vulonkaaz v3.1
   one thing that I realised only recently is that there actually is a huge opposition between the free software community and the pirate community
   
   a pirate is free, as long as they can do it they will do it, they will make their own forks of minecraft and distribute stolen/leaked source code, for them a license file is basically just a formality they know no one gonna read it anyway and everybody will just do whatever with what they make
   
   a free software guy is something even more obsessed with copyright than nintendo or disney
   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Tuesday, 01-Oct-2024 03:52:12 JST 翠星石

     in reply to
     @vulonkaaz Piracy is theft and murder with the help of a boat - I believe you are referring to prohibited copying.
     
     A program that you don't have the source code to is useless, as you can't feasibly make non-trivial changes to it, in a reasonable amount of time, even if you decide to risk it and modify it illegally.
     
     Redistributing leaked or exfiltrated source code is of incredible risk, as you risk prison time.
     
     minecraft was Java, so decompiling it does net roughly similar source code, although it is not the same and does not contain any comments, so such is a poor substitute for real source code.
     
     Yes, minetest mods that infringe copyright will not be accepted, as the minetest developers do not want to have to deal with copyright trolls.
     
     
     Free software developers need to make sure to keep the copyright and licenses in order, so people can legally contribute improvements with confidence that they're not going to end up sued.
   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Tuesday, 01-Oct-2024 03:58:23 JST 翠星石

     in reply to

     • the_daikon_warfare
     @sicp >if software wasn't copyrightable/patentable (as it was for a period of time) then free software licenses wouldn't need to exist.
     License's couldn't exist, rather than wouldn't need to.
     
     Unfortunately, even during the time when copyrights or patents didn't apply to software, many businesses refused to publish the source code, claiming such was their "trade secret", despite publishing the binary (which can be reverse-engineered to find any possible "trade secrets", but you need to actually make an effort to keep "trade secrets" secret for them to count).
     
     Currently, freedom-defending licenses take a crucial role in defending the freedom of the software.
     
     >I think it's a great thing when, for example game developers follow the example of Quake and release the code for their games freely.
     I believe the quake source code was only released like 10-20 years after the main release, but that's a lot better than most.
     
     If I remember correctly, the sources for the first few quake versions are complete, but later versions are incomplete, as later versions of the engine have scripting supports and the game relevant scripts have not been released under a free software license.
   • Embed this notice
     the_daikon_warfare (sicp@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Tuesday, 01-Oct-2024 03:58:24 JST the_daikon_warfare

     in reply to
     @vulonkaaz It's like the saying about how a lock only keeps an honest man honest: if software wasn't copyrightable/patentable (as it was for a period of time) then free software licenses wouldn't need to exist.
     
     The issue of copyright on software versus other forms of media, I think are mostly separate for this reason, since they emphasize freedom of use/reuse versus freedom of copying/sharing.
     
     Video games are also a grey area, since they both consist of software and media. I think it's a great thing when, for example game developers follow the example of Quake and release the code for their games freely.
   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Tuesday, 01-Oct-2024 04:55:12 JST 翠星石

     in reply to

     • the_daikon_warfare
     @sicp >I don't think trade secret laws covered software before that point, either
     Companies try to claim that everything is a trade secret, but I haven't seen any cases where software source code was deemed to not be a trade secret.
     
     I agree that patents and trade secret laws should be abolished, as they result in only a steep negative.
     
     >with their products suddenly found it in their interest to stop (ex. when Xerox refused to give the AI Lab the driver code for their new printer).
     It wasn't only Xerox who refused - one of Xerox's developers signed an NDA to betray humanity and then carried through on the betrayal.
     
     >The source to the original Quake was released under GPLv2 in 1999, 3 years after the game came out.
     I was thinking of DOOM, which took 10-20 years for the different versions.
     
     >IIRC it was one of the first commercial games to be ported to GNU/Linux.
     A commercial proprietary game being ported was arguably less interesting than all the interesting free software games ported to GNU/Linux prior.
   • Embed this notice
     the_daikon_warfare (sicp@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Tuesday, 01-Oct-2024 04:55:13 JST the_daikon_warfare

     in reply to

     • 翠星石
     @Suiseiseki
     > Unfortunately, even during the time when copyrights or patents didn't apply to software, many businesses refused to publish the source code, claiming such was their "trade secret"
     I don't think trade secret laws covered software before that point, either, and businesses who would have otherwise delivered the source code with their products suddenly found it in their interest to stop (ex. when Xerox refused to give the AI Lab the driver code for their new printer).
     I think "trade secret" laws are of the relevant few laws (along with patents) that ought to be entirely abolished rather than reformed. If a business has what they consider to be their "trade secret" leaked out, then it's their fault and they should have no legal recourse to compensate for their mistake. I think this would eventually drive home the idea that keeping secrets from valuable clients is ultimately futile and hinders successful business.
     
     > Currently, freedom-defending licenses take a crucial role in defending the freedom of the software.
     I agree.
     
     > I believe the quake source code was only released like 10-20 years after the main release, but that's a lot better than most.
     The source to the original Quake was released under GPLv2 in 1999, 3 years after the game came out. IIRC it was one of the first commercial games to be ported to GNU/Linux. They seemed to follow a policy of releasing their code a few years after they were done with it, as they did for the engines for Quake 2, 3, and Doom 3/Quake 4, but they haven't followed up on this for a long time, unfortunately. I think it's a good example for game developers to follow, though it is preferable to just make the engines free in the first place (which some nowadays do).
   • Embed this notice
     LisPi (lispi314@udongein.xyz)'s status on Tuesday, 01-Oct-2024 20:33:11 JST LisPi

     in reply to

     • 翠星石
     • the_daikon_warfare
     @sicp @vulonkaaz @Suiseiseki > The CC0 license was designed to grant nearest public domain equivalence in jurisdictions that don't have an analogous concept. With public domain the Four Freedoms are neither here nor there with regards to derivative works.
     
     One of the concerns of CC0 is that it doesn't free users from the bullshit of patent interference.
     
     Apache license, among others, handles that.
     
     > However "public domain" is not, which is why I said that instead.
     
     Fair.
     
     > As I understand it the set of Creative Commons licenses were made to cover a large area of issues, and were not intended primarily for software.
     
     I seem to recall similarly.
     翠星石 likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     the_daikon_warfare (sicp@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Tuesday, 01-Oct-2024 20:33:12 JST the_daikon_warfare

     in reply to

     • 翠星石
     • LisPi
     @lispi314 @Suiseiseki @vulonkaaz
     > Too many broken countries don't have such a thing, and the alternatives don't focus enough on the importance of the Four Freedoms.
     The CC0 license was designed to grant nearest public domain equivalence in jurisdictions that don't have an analogous concept. With public domain the Four Freedoms are neither here nor there with regards to derivative works.
     
     > Some creative commons licenses are even non-Free.
     Indeed some of them are, and I generally don't approve of them. However "public domain" is not, which is why I said that instead. As I understand it the set of Creative Commons licenses were made to cover a large area of issues, and were not intended primarily for software.
     
     > "Copyright" is generally a misnomer
     I know. That is why I have no issue when "copyright" is used to legally grant someone his real "copy-right".
   • Embed this notice
     LisPi (lispi314@udongein.xyz)'s status on Tuesday, 01-Oct-2024 20:33:13 JST LisPi

     in reply to

     • 翠星石
     • the_daikon_warfare
     @sicp @vulonkaaz @Suiseiseki > People I know who have an overall objection to copyright tend to prefer public domain over copyleft.
     
     Too many broken countries don't have such a thing, and the alternatives don't focus enough on the importance of the Four Freedoms.
     
     Some creative commons licenses are even non-Free.
     
     > I have no issue with copyright when it is used to uphold one's right to copy things he comes into possession of, or preserve the authors within a derivative work.
     
     "Copyright" is generally a misnomer, it's "copy authorization monopoly". Preserving the right of people to replicate, share, remix and build upon information & art is not its purpose.
     
     I of course approve of the latter. As for preserving the authors(' information & crediting), I do consider that proper crediting is just good etiquette (it can also be useful for later research & whatever that one may undertake).
     
     > For instance when you acquire and modify software that is free, you're under no obligation to share it with anyone.
     
     That is true.
     
     > However, I also believe that free publication of all research should be a component of legal conduct for public scientific and academic institutions, and I don't think pharmaceutical companies should be allowed to operate while marketing proprietary research.
     
     It certainly should be. Privatization of such things which ought to be public commons has been a disaster.
     
     Certainly for any public institutions or public funding, it should be mandatory that the public then benefit of it in its entirety.
   • Embed this notice
     the_daikon_warfare (sicp@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Tuesday, 01-Oct-2024 20:33:14 JST the_daikon_warfare

     in reply to

     • 翠星石
     • LisPi
     @lispi314 @Suiseiseki @vulonkaaz
     People I know who have an overall objection to copyright tend to prefer public domain over copyleft. That is fine and free, but is a different philosophy to what is implied by "free software". I have no issue with copyright when it is used to uphold one's right to copy things he comes into possession of, or preserve the authors within a derivative work.
     
     When morality is applied to copyright of things other than software, they often become different, though similar issues with their own nuances. For instance when you acquire and modify software that is free, you're under no obligation to share it with anyone. However, I also believe that free publication of all research should be a component of legal conduct for public scientific and academic institutions, and I don't think pharmaceutical companies should be allowed to operate while marketing proprietary research.
   • Embed this notice
     LisPi (lispi314@udongein.xyz)'s status on Tuesday, 01-Oct-2024 20:33:15 JST LisPi

     in reply to

     • 翠星石
     @Suiseiseki @vulonkaaz Basically, we who care about Free Software have to unfortunately care /somewhat/ about copyright to cover our asses and those of users.
     
     We certainly have no moral approval of copyright. At least, the sane ones among us don't.
   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Tuesday, 01-Oct-2024 20:34:36 JST 翠星石

     in reply to

     • LisPi
     • the_daikon_warfare
     @lispi314 @sicp The creative commons licenses are not designed for software.
     
     There is a public domain dedication license in the works; https://wpdd.info/
   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Tuesday, 01-Oct-2024 20:55:10 JST 翠星石

     in reply to

     • Ayam Geprek
     @goo That is contradicting yourself - you say there is a license, but then all that's in there is the words "public domain" and it's not clear what that's meant to even mean or apply to.
     
     If it was a COPYING file that said; "This software is released into the public domain worldwide, but if that is not possible in your jurisdiction, you have unlimited permission to copy, distribute and/or modify the software, even for commercial purposes. There is no warranty of any kind, express or implied.", that could possibly be valid, but that still misses a lot of issues that plague software.
     
     You really need to use something as thorough as the CC0 or WPDD to validly place something in the public domain, or equivalent worldwide with certainty.
   • Embed this notice
     Ayam Geprek (goo@shitposter.world)'s status on Tuesday, 01-Oct-2024 20:55:11 JST Ayam Geprek

     in reply to

     • 翠星石
     • LisPi
     • the_daikon_warfare
     @Suiseiseki @sicp @lispi314 nah i just make a LICENSE file with 2 words, "public domain"
   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Tuesday, 01-Oct-2024 21:17:57 JST 翠星石

     in reply to

     • Ayam Geprek
     @goo It doesn't matter if you don't care, the government says that people cannot do things without explicit unambiguous permission, which means that you need to give that to allow them to do so.
   • Embed this notice
     Ayam Geprek (goo@shitposter.world)'s status on Tuesday, 01-Oct-2024 21:17:58 JST Ayam Geprek

     in reply to

     • 翠星石
     @Suiseiseki nah see the whole point of making the license file a text document saying "public domain" is to illustrate people can do whatever they want with it and i don't care
   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Tuesday, 01-Oct-2024 22:43:41 JST 翠星石

     in reply to

     • nawan 🇮🇩
     @nawanp I did not write that those were copyright licenses - I event pointed out that a LICENSE file for a public domain release is contradictory.
     
     Copyright restricts things, rather than protects them.
     
     It's only copyleft licenses that protects the freedom of software.
   • Embed this notice
     nawan 🇮🇩 (nawanp@fe.disroot.org)'s status on Tuesday, 01-Oct-2024 22:43:43 JST nawan 🇮🇩

     in reply to

     • 翠星石
     • Ayam Geprek

     @Suiseiseki @goo Please note that CC0 or WPDD is not a copyright license, because public domain itself means that something is not protected by copyright, so CC0 and WPDD is not a copyright license because copyright license need copyright in the first place.

   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Tuesday, 01-Oct-2024 23:12:49 JST 翠星石

     in reply to

     • Taylan
     @taylan The CC0 and WPDD are a public domain dedication by default, although they also offer a copyright license in case that is not possible.
   • Embed this notice
     Taylan (taylan@fedi.feministwiki.org)'s status on Tuesday, 01-Oct-2024 23:12:51 JST Taylan

     in reply to

     • 翠星石
     • nawan 🇮🇩
     • Ayam Geprek
     @nawanp @Suiseiseki @goo
     
     They actually are copyright licenses, from what I understand.
     
     If something is public domain, it doesn't belong to anyone, and everyone can use it without a license at all.
     
     However, some jurisdictions don't have a concept of something being released willingly into the public domain by it's author. Everything is always under copyright law in those jurisdictions, until the copyright expires. This means that, even if the author published a declaration saying "I release this work into the public domain," that is not legally binding and the author can still later sue you for using the work if the author changes their mind.
     
     In such jurisdictions, an author can release their work under a license like CC0 to give others a license to use it in the same ways they would be able to use it if it weren't under copyright / if it truly were in the public domain.
     
     Such a license would, by the way, not be a copyleft licence, because public domain is not copyleft. A derivative work of something in the public domain is not automatically public domain. For example, recent Sherlock Holmes movies and TV series are not public domain, even though the character of Sherlock Holmes and other figures appearing in the original works are now in the public domain.
     
     A license that claims to release a work into the public domain but actually enforces derivative works to be released under similar terms is using copyright law to enforce that restriction. It couldn't do so if it weren't a copyright license.
     
     Even a license that doesn't add such a restriction, and truly allows everything that public domain allows, is still a copyright license, because it grants those rights under copyright law, even if the resulting situation is equivalent to if the work were truly in the public domain and didn't require a license. You basically *emulate* public domain with such a license.
   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Tuesday, 01-Oct-2024 23:22:46 JST 翠星石

     in reply to

     • nawan 🇮🇩
     @nawanp >to say that you’re giving up all the rights
     There are no rights, there are only restrictions.
     
     >what you’ve created.
     Authors should not be elevated to the level of a deity just because they've published some works.
     
     
     There are many possible informal licenses or public domain dedications, but doing so is a gamble as to if any such informal license would be held as valid - while the CC0 and WPDD use carefully written and tested legal language.
     
     https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#informal
     
     I remember that the "WTFPL" was deemed to not be valid in a certain country, although I can't remember which one.
   • Embed this notice
     nawan 🇮🇩 (nawanp@fe.disroot.org)'s status on Tuesday, 01-Oct-2024 23:22:47 JST nawan 🇮🇩

     in reply to

     • 翠星石

     @Suiseiseki I mean:

     You really need to use something as thorough as the CC0 or WPDD to validly place something in the public domain, or equivalent worldwide with certainty.

     You don’t need to use license to say that you’re giving up all the rights to what you’ve created.

     Unfortunately, this also mean that even if you use CC0, it will not work in country that does not recognized public domain.

   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Tuesday, 01-Oct-2024 23:24:29 JST 翠星石

     in reply to

     • 翠星石
     • nawan 🇮🇩
     @nawanp >Unfortunately, this also mean that even if you use CC0, it will not work in country that does not recognized public domain.
     The CC0 contain a license for countries where public domain is not recognized; https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/legalcode
   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Wednesday, 02-Oct-2024 23:36:45 JST 翠星石

     in reply to

     • nawan 🇮🇩
     @nawanp >Copyright exists with the aim of protecting the results of human innovation and creativity in the hope that it will benefit the wider community.
     No, that is not why copyright exists.
     
     It exists solely to convince authors to publish more works, to benefit society at large, in exchange for restrictions that were previously temporary and didn't affect the enjoyment of such works.
     
     Too bad copyright laws have been twisted to the point that authors are tricked into surrendering their copyright to a publisher, who proceeds to restrict the enjoyment of such work as much as possible, in the hope that by doing so, maximal profit will be extracted.
   • Embed this notice
     nawan 🇮🇩 (nawanp@fe.disroot.org)'s status on Wednesday, 02-Oct-2024 23:36:46 JST nawan 🇮🇩

     in reply to

     • 翠星石
     • Creative Commons

     @Suiseiseki

     Authors should not be elevated to the level of a deity just because they’ve published some works.

     That’s why we have @creativecommons ♥️

     Copyright exists with the aim of protecting the results of human innovation and creativity in the hope that it will benefit the wider community. Organizations like Creative Commons aim to ensure copyright remains on track.

     https://www.eff.org/issues/innovation