@mint The license you use literally states; "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."
@sally@mint 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.
Such requirement does not qualify a-f and therefore the user can remove it.
@mint@sally It's like skipping penis inspection day, as you don't want to be groped for no legitimate reason (with the psyop that if you don't comply, you must have a small size).
@sally@Suiseiseki Stripping +NIGGER is like skipping school during penis inspection day, you have no reason to do so if you aren't ashamed of your penis size.
He's clearly pointing out that the requirement is incompatible with the GPLv3 and AGPLv3.
Beyond the compromises about trademarks, changing the AGPLv3 or GPLv3 is unacceptable and should not be tolerated.
The following email is much later and rms likely believed it was in relation to another free license that contains such proprietary word - which wouldn't make such license inherently nonfree.
@Suiseiseki@mint he went out of his way to quote the original email after being sent the full text of the addendum in one of the replies, he clearly understood the context
@lina@iamtakingiteasy I mean, I stole it from some youjo pedo ages ago as well. In terms of license selling the DB should be all clear since it's basically the same as selling a picture you made in GIMP; +NIGGER here is a litmus test rather than a legally bound modifier.
@Inginsub@Suiseiseki@mint RMS is misunderstanding the implications of these "restrictions". There are no restrictions. The license remains totally free for anyone to use. All restrictions stem from self-enforcement through kafka-trapping. A psychological spook attack. Unrelated to copyright law.
@remnant The other is git://git.mxchange.org/fba.git, which I think is used for private instance of a guy who runs f.haeder.net. Used to be a couple more but wouldn't find them right now.
@remnant I skimmed through it and it felt too corporate with a lot of abstractions, basically a polar opposite of quick and dirty nodeinfo grabbers. Most of the code isn't mine either, I forked it from https://gitgud.io/EnjuAihara/fedi-block-api since the guy who made it is a self-admitted diddler and I'd rather not use his services. Haven't touched it in a while since it outlived it usefulness for the most part, many just hide blocks altogether and no one puts funny reasons anymore.
@remnant Upwards of 15-20 hours since it runs through the list sequentially and doesn't check or write down instance's availablity. It's just a cron job that runs once a day, wrapped in flock(1) so that it doesn't try to run more than two instances.