Conversation
Notices
-
Embed this notice
pistolero (p@fsebugoutzone.org)'s status on Sunday, 20-Oct-2024 21:54:38 JST 
pistolero
@TheMadPirate @EdBoatConnoisseur @lamp @neo Licensing really only matters to corporations, and that is the actual push behind "rewrite things in Rust": the rewrites are almost uniformly MIT-licensed. I used to MIT-license everything, I have stopped doing that. - ✙ dcc :pedomustdie: :phear_slackware: likes this.
-
Embed this notice
neo@shork.comfysnug.space's status on Sunday, 20-Oct-2024 21:54:34 JST
neo
@p@fsebugoutzone.org
What license do you recommend instead?
@TheMadPirate@detroitriotcity.com @EdBoatConnoisseur@poa.st @lamp@kitty.haus -
Embed this notice
翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Sunday, 20-Oct-2024 21:55:11 JST 
翠星石
@p AGPLv3-only or AGPLv3-or-later?
Imaginary property does not exist - you have been successfully confused by corporates into getting confused between copyright law and other completely different laws.
Copyright law does restrict software even during personal use, even if the government or microsoft is not currently enforcing such on each and every computer, but if you put so much effort into writing the software, why throw all that effort away by making it so that people cannot confidently modify and share it under a free license? -
Embed this notice
pistolero (p@fsebugoutzone.org)'s status on Sunday, 20-Oct-2024 21:55:14 JST
pistolero
@neo @lamp @EdBoatConnoisseur @TheMadPirate TL;DR: this turned into a rant but I plan to use AGPLv3 for most of the stuff I do, and if I'm making a recommendation, it's that. Your mileage may vary.
Trivial stuff, I'm just shoving onto the internet. Anal-retentive people get all flustered if you download a .c file and then compile it and you don't know what the license is, but really, nobody's going after a dude hacking at home and intellectual property is a spook and cramming SPDX identifiers into every file in a repo is batshit insane.
So if you think in practical terms, like, the situation on the ground, only businesses and organizations are really bound by licensing terms. You don't really need a "personal use" exception, people just do stuff. Especially businesses, though, Oracle or Microsoft or Google or even some dipshit "NFT but it's AI" startup raising a Series C, they drag in all of the MIT/BSD-licensed code they can, and they won't touch AGPLv3. OpenSSL and xz and all of these projects that come down to one broke guy hacking for free, and these businesses exploit that code.
In general, this has been a problem: finance psychopaths have eaten the entire tech industry. It used to be safe for nerds and spergs to say all their insane shit and show up for work some time after lunch and work until 5 a.m. and those are now the people being pushed out in favor of people that the business guys like, and the business guys fucking hate hackers and they have been doing their best to make the industry hostile. (I really should clip out that thing Hamming said in his lecture, that was great shit.) They push rms out, they browbeat Linus for 20 years until he lets their CoC in, they lead the charge when some poor bastard's Github Issues are raided. Those are the people that are spooked by licensing terms, and they are the people that can write a check or fuck off. There is no organization to assign a copyright to, because I want to horrify anyone that considers a license change.
I don't expect to make a huge dent, but I do intend to ignore fuckers that see a house I have built and then complain that the AGPLv3 prevents them from using the design for tract homes: they have given me no reason to care what they think and plenty of reasons not to. Some asshole thought-leader is at a summit, looking down his nose at engineers, and I don't intend to support his bottom line. Anything I make, I make for myself, for other hackers, and to advance things that I want advanced: freedom of speech is a big one. I want Google and Twitter and Oracle and Microsoft and the rest of the Silicon Valley Data Cartel dead. I want censorship dead, along with any organization that has ever tried to force someone to shut up. I sure as fuck don't want to end up doing work for them for free.
14--freedom_of_speech.mp3
weirdhackers.png
xkcd_is_only_occasionally_good_and_this_was_one_of_those_times.png -
Embed this notice
翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Monday, 21-Oct-2024 20:15:09 JST
翠星石
@p >IP law is what makes license grants possible
Wrong.
As per US copyright law, what makes license grants possible is a law called copyright law and nothing else; https://www.copyright.gov/title17/title17.pdf
Due to clear corruption, the imaginary property term is injected into the preface and the titles and a few other places and there's some misuse of "property" as term, but copyright is clearly stated to be something different to property.
>I said I was going to use AGPLv3 for this project. I'm not sure what you think I ought to do.
You ought to explicitly license AGPLv3-or-later, rather that leaving ambiguity between AGPLv3-only and AGPLv3+.
You also mentioned not licensing, which is what that comment referred to. -
Embed this notice
pistolero (p@fsebugoutzone.org)'s status on Monday, 21-Oct-2024 20:15:10 JST
pistolero
@Suiseiseki
> Imaginary property does not exist - you have been successfully confused by corporates into getting confused between copyright law and other completely different laws.
IP law is what makes license grants possible. As I think people should ignore IP law (I'm happy to comply with AGPLv3 terms because they express a reasonable request by the authors) but I know that businesses will not ignore IP law.
I am not certain that what you have said has any implications for my behavior.
> why throw all that effort away by making it so that people cannot confidently modify and share it under a free license?
I said I was going to use AGPLv3 for this project and by default for other projects. I have been saying that for a few years now. I'm not sure what you think I ought to do. -
Embed this notice
翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Monday, 21-Oct-2024 21:20:46 JST
翠星石
@p >Copyright law is a specific case of IP law.
Copyright was a thing long before someone imagined up such proprietary brain damage term.
Even people in the "WIPO" has realized that many people don't buy their name and has recommended that the name has been changed.
>because copyright is within the purview of the World Imaginary Property Organization
Copyright is in the purview of each countries governments, although most governments follow their beck and call.
>The term "intellectual property" did not exist when the British pushed the US to adopt copyright law, which we did not have for a long time: anyone could copy books here.
At the time I believe anyone could copy books in Britain by hand and it was a matter that restricted printing presses only.
Even when the USA adopted copyright, initially it did not apply to works from other countries.
>If I reject intellectual property as a concept, I have also rejected copyright; there is not a way to reject intellectual property without rejecting copyright.
If you reject imaginary property as the false concept that it is, that does not mean you could have possibly rejected an actual law that actually exists.
>if you accept the concept of copyright, then the license explicitly grants the right to copy, while if you do not, the license does not matter.
There is no choice whether to accept the concept of copyright or not, the law exists and restricts copying and the government enforces it - if you make a copy, you need to follow the license whether or not you accept it.
>they are trying to kick rms and Sussman off the board of the FSF. Do you trust that the FSF is impossible to corrupt, and also that they will never make a mistake?
The FSF has very carefully set up a voting scheme that ensures that it is impossible to corrupt and still have the Free Software Foundation and that any mistakes can be resolved, so yes I do trust them.
As per the AGPLv3; "The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions of the GNU Affero General Public License from time to time. Such new versions will be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to address new problems or concerns.", only the Free Software Foundation may publish revised versions and such versions need to be similar in spirit to be valid.
Most other software licenses that offer an ability to fix license bugs simply give permission for an easily corrupted committee to release new versions that could contain anything.
>But imagine Drew DeVault seizes control of the FSF and AGPLv4 fails to respect the four freedoms
He cannot - nobody will vote that freedom hater in.
>I cannot look at later versions, because they do not exist, and thus cannot decide anything about them.
I can feel that if later versions need to exist, they will certainly be free, as unlike how other organizations bugfix licenses, the FSF license bugfix process is public.
If you have misplaced doubt, please assign a proxy; "If the Program specifies that a proxy can decide which future versions of the GNU Affero General Public License can be used, that proxy's public statement of acceptance of a version permanently authorizes you to choose that version for the Program.". -
Embed this notice
pistolero (p@fsebugoutzone.org)'s status on Monday, 21-Oct-2024 21:20:47 JST
pistolero
@Suiseiseki
> As per US copyright law, what makes license grants possible is a law called copyright law
Copyright law is a specific case of IP law. Copyright is a special case of intellectual property. There is no room to dispute this. WIPO (spit) is concerned with copyright, because copyright is within the purview of the World Intellectual Property Organization (spit).
> copyright is clearly stated to be something different to property.
The term "intellectual property" did not exist when the British pushed the US to adopt copyright law, which we did not have for a long time: anyone could copy books here.
If I reject intellectual property as a concept, I have also rejected copyright; there is not a way to reject intellectual property without rejecting copyright. This is one of the reasons the copyleft is clever: if you accept the concept of copyright, then the license explicitly grants the right to copy, while if you do not, the license does not matter.
> You ought to explicitly license AGPLv3-or-later,
It is funny that you mention this, because I see this notification right after another from a different thread I am participating in: they are trying to kick rms and Sussman off the board of the FSF. Do you trust that the FSF is impossible to corrupt, and also that they will never make a mistake?
I do not trust hypothetical future licenses; if there is an "or later" version of the AGPLv3 that is compatible with the AGPLv3, then that is fine. But imagine Drew DeVault seizes control of the FSF and AGPLv4 fails to respect the four freedoms: I will regret saying "And anything this organization decides to call a later version of the AGPL is fine." The AGPLv3 is a concrete thing: I can look at it and make a decision. I cannot look at later versions, because they do not exist, and thus cannot decide anything about them. -
Embed this notice
翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Monday, 21-Oct-2024 22:47:37 JST
翠星石
@p >This book, which everyone loved, and which was used in offices and classrooms, was killed by AT&T because it violated their copyright on the Unix source code.
As far as I can tell, the book was originally legal to distribute and then suddenly a court decided that software fell under copyright and then the book became proprietary and then AT&T demanded it stop being distributed.
>rejecting the existence of a body of law.
Imaginary property does not exist as a body of law no matter what conmen lawyers say or how many fanfictions they write - there are specific laws that were written separately, which are all completely different and have no legitimate points of comparison other that how each curtails freedom.
>I am a pirate.
You do not have a boat that you use to commit theft and murder with the help of, therefore you are not a pirate.
>Would you commit to eating something and all later versions of it, as decided by a committee that you have no control of? If I say I'll eat a burger, that's fine: I know what I am eating. If some day the committee decides that ketchup must be added, I hate ketchup, I'll be upset.
Now that is American.
I would commit to eating something and potentially later versions of it if the committee was *the* freedom burger committee and I wasn't forced to eat the later burger if I didn't want to.
If you hate ketchup, you can demand that the ketchup not be added during the license draft stage.
If the burger somehow is clearly going to, or ends up with ketchup in it anyway, you can just go and re-license to Burgerv3-only and stop distributing the Burgerv3-or-later version - you aren't forced to eat it after all.
>Jim Salter appears to be on their side
As far as I can tell, he is merely a associate member, who can only vote once and doesn't get any final say and it appears that he is planning on ending his associate membership (giving him no ability to vote).
It wouldn't surprise me that a proprietary software lover would be on their side.
>I am giving proper weight to licensing: "I'll agree to this and will not agree to write a blank check" and until there is new information, that's the decision.
Then you want a proxy, who can decide if later versions of the license are acceptable when published, without having to go and ask every single copyright holder to relicense.
>Linux was delegated to a foundation, so that businesses could be comfortable using Linux, Linux acquired the ability to be coopted, taken from its creator.
Linux had no "creator" - Linus announced the project, but many programmers wrote it.
Proprietary software being added into Linux as well as a CoC wasn't a co-opt - Linus agreed to such.
>GNU projects typically (though not necessarily) assign copyright to the FSF, the FSF can take things away.
The FSF cannot take things away, all GNU licenses are written to be irrevocable if followed and the FSF only has permission to relicense for the benefit free software. -
Embed this notice
pistolero (p@fsebugoutzone.org)'s status on Monday, 21-Oct-2024 22:47:38 JST
pistolero
@Suiseiseki
> Copyright was a thing long before someone imagined up such proprietary brain damage term.
For the same reason the phrase "freedom of expression" was created to encompass freedom of speech, of the press, etc., and the various new media that came into being, a term "intellectual property" was coined to encompass copyrights, patents, etc. You can argue that it's a bad term, but "copyright" is a bad term: anyone has the right to copy something, as there is no victim when a piece of information is copied and there are plenty of benefactors.
> Even people in the "WIPO" has realized that many people don't buy their name and has recommended that the name has been changed.
It's just the international version of the BSA; I don't care what they're called, I would like them to stop.
> Copyright is in the purview of each countries governments
:ancapchanlol:
> At the time I believe anyone could copy books in Britain by hand and it was a matter that restricted printing presses only.
The British threatened trade sanctions against the US, as books that were covered by local copyright were taken to the US and then copied and reprinted. I think books ought to be copied. Here, here's a copy of a book. My copy is transferred to the server, where it is copied, and you can save it and create a copy and have your own copy. This book, which everyone loved, and which was used in offices and classrooms, was killed by AT&T because it violated their copyright on the Unix source code. So people started using Xerox machines to copy it and pass it around. And I am directing some machines to make a copy and you can make a copy of it. Anyone can make a copy of it.
> If you reject imaginary property as the false concept that it is, that does not mean you could have possibly rejected an actual law that actually exists.
You have said something absurd.
Rejecting a concept as valid does not mean the same thing as rejecting the existence of a body of law. I reject the concept but I know the laws still exist; this is no different from software patents. I reject the concept: software patents are not reasonable. You agree with me on that concept, unless I'm mistaken. However, the laws protecting them do still exist.
> There is no choice whether to accept the concept of copyright or not,
Then I have done the impossible--before breakfast, even!
> if you make a copy, you need to follow the license whether or not you accept it.
I am a pirate.
> The FSF has very carefully set up a voting scheme that ensures that it is impossible to corrupt
There exists no voting scheme that can do this, but let's say I'll play: it is possible for the FSF to amend its bylaws and thus introduce a scheme that allows corruption. The members of the board are only humans and humans are replaced with other humans and ultimately the board can do what it wants. You also cannot discount a black swan: Sulla can march on Rome.
You cannot say that the future is certain. If you can show me the text of all future versions of the AGPL, then I can make a decision. If you cannot, then you must make an argument based on trust. If I do not have to rely on trust, then I will not. Especially the FSF, which has, in my view, been compromised since the first attempt to remove rms.
> only the Free Software Foundation may publish revised versions and such versions need to be similar in spirit to be valid.
What guarantee do I have of this besides trust?
I do not need trust to say "This is the license." I can read the words on the page. I cannot read future versions of it.
> He cannot - nobody will vote that freedom hater in.
Jim Salter appears to be on their side: https://fosstodon.org/@jimsalter/113330555018293763 .
> the FSF license bugfix process is public.
Would you commit to eating something and all later versions of it, as decided by a committee that you have no control of? If I say I'll eat a burger, that's fine: I know what I am eating. If some day the committee decides that ketchup must be added, I hate ketchup, I'll be upset.
> If you have misplaced doubt
I have nothing but doubt, but as licenses exist only to provide limited grants of (legal) rights organizations that fear the law. It is a ward, a sigil, it repels people that would exploit the software, which represents my work, and provides some peace to people that are concerned about the law but wish to use the software.
I am giving proper weight to licensing: "I'll agree to this and will not agree to write a blank check" and until there is new information, that's the decision. In order for this decision to cause me problems in the future, the code would have to be important enough, and it would also have to have enough contributors that there would be difficulty getting them to agree to relicense. Now, I have no control over the FSF, but I do decide whose patches I merge and whose I do not. I am not obligated to trust the FSF, but I must trust people whose patches are merged.
Because Linux was delegated to a foundation, so that businesses could be comfortable using Linux, Linux acquired the ability to be coopted, taken from its creator. Because GNU projects typically (though not necessarily) assign copyright to the FSF, the FSF can take things away. You can seize control of a foundation. I do not trust a foundation: I trust individual people that I know, I trust machines, I trust that if there are words on a page that those words do not move.
lion-s_commentary_on_unix.pdf
All GNU social JP content and data are available under the 
