Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   Sun Microdevil Pte Ltd (koakuma@uwu.social)'s status on Monday, 24-Nov-2025 19:43:03 JST Sun Microdevil Pte Ltd

   :cirnothinking: I feel like there's this disconnect between people who subscribe to GPL-style ideology and the people who actually have to use licenses

   GPL supporters are happy because they managed to "hack" copyright into a license that makes sure the code stays libre, meanwhile the more pragmatic set of license users looked at what it takes to actually enforce the terms in a court and noped out of it entirely

   It's very hard for me, a regular individual, to *force you to do something*, but it's much more practical for me to try to *prevent you from suing me* over my own work
   Hence, the rather popular use of "disclaimer over terms" (often pejoratively called "permissive") type of licenses

   RE: https://borg.social/notes/aeiplduzt5tv01dg

   • Haelwenn /элвэн/ :triskell: likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     iced depresso (icedquinn@blob.cat)'s status on Monday, 24-Nov-2025 19:43:02 JST iced depresso

     in reply to
     @koakuma gpl has been upheld in court afaik. beware that corporate interests are highly motivated in you not using licenses they can't successfully clown.
     
     the fud over gpl only stopped one they realized they could cheat it with network proxies. then the agpl closed that, and the hate is back on (although agpl is almost exclusively used by open core whores.)
   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Monday, 24-Nov-2025 19:46:30 JST 翠星石

     in reply to

     • iced depresso
     @icedquinn @koakuma There are far more fully free software projects that are licensed under AGPLv3-or-later than "open core" projects.
     
     It doesn't particularly matter if there's a proprietary version as long as there is a free version and you don't use the proprietary version.
   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Monday, 24-Nov-2025 19:52:14 JST 翠星石

     in reply to
     @koakuma A weak license almost always does a poor job of preventing other people from suing you over your own work.
     
     Meanwhile the GPLv3 contains a patent license, meaning that if some business decides to write a derivative work of the software, they have no grounds to sue you - as the needed patents have been licensed.
     
     With weak licenses like MIT expat, a business can go and make changes to the software and then sue you with software patents to stop you from competing with their proprietary version.
     
     The only weak license I'm aware of that has a patent license is Apache 2.0.
     
     An individual doesn't always need to enforce the GPLv3-or-later personally - there are some lawyers that are willing to sue for you as long as they get the damages and if the same result of a weak license is wanted, then the license can go unenforced.
   • Embed this notice
     iced depresso (icedquinn@blob.cat)'s status on Monday, 24-Nov-2025 19:56:10 JST iced depresso

     in reply to

     • :umu: :umu:
     @a1ba @koakuma > Copyright itself is irrelevant these days and I sincerely hope that in a battle of shit vs piss AI vs copyright, copyright will get destroyed.
     
     sadly its shaping up to just be the usual "if a billionaire wants to do it then its not illegal" bullshit. as in, its illegal for you to steal a book but if facebook steals four million books then its fine. *and* they get to claim the slop factory built entirely on stolen crap is copyrightable for themselves.
   • Embed this notice
     :umu: :umu: (a1ba@suya.place)'s status on Monday, 24-Nov-2025 19:56:11 JST :umu: :umu:

     in reply to

     @koakuma would use gpl for anything remotely serious only as a stance against corpos using free software and not giving anything in return.

     Copyright itself is irrelevant these days and I sincerely hope that in a battle of shit vs piss AI vs copyright, copyright will get destroyed.

   • Embed this notice
     iced depresso (icedquinn@blob.cat)'s status on Monday, 24-Nov-2025 19:57:06 JST iced depresso

     in reply to

     • :umu: :umu:
     • Phantasm
     @phnt @a1ba @koakuma i'm partial to the osl v3 but the fsf doesn't like it.
     
     artistic license would also be ok if you could strike out the clause that allows closed source forks.
     
     we're mostly stuck with the gpl due to inertia even though its generally considered a bad license. not so much for what it tries to do but just that its overly long winded for what it does do. there are equivalent existing licenses (like osl v3, lol) that are plainly readable.
     
     the fact that every judge is a technophobic boomer is... well. nothing to be done about that really. :blobcatpain:
   • Embed this notice
     Phantasm (phnt@fluffytail.org)'s status on Monday, 24-Nov-2025 19:57:08 JST Phantasm

     in reply to

     • :umu: :umu:
     @a1ba @koakuma Yeah, basically that. GPL serves only as a corporate deterrent and nothing else these days. If they can't control the software, they'll likely not use it. And if I want a piece of code to be used by everybody (eg. not caring who uses it), I would license it under some BSD/MIT or MPL depending on type of software.
   • Embed this notice
     iced depresso (icedquinn@blob.cat)'s status on Monday, 24-Nov-2025 20:13:01 JST iced depresso

     in reply to
     @koakuma no courts are automatic. criminal conduct is referred to the district attorney's office as a recommendation for prosecution. the DAs decide to press charges or not. its only "automatic" in that a civil offense requires an aggrieved party to formally complain (sue) whereas a criminal offense the government is considered the aggrieved party.
   • Embed this notice
     Sun Microdevil Pte Ltd (koakuma@uwu.social)'s status on Monday, 24-Nov-2025 20:13:02 JST Sun Microdevil Pte Ltd

     in reply to

     • iced depresso

     @icedquinn It's less about GPL's validity and more that you have to launch and sustain a copyright lawsuit if someone violates your license - those things doesn't automatically kick in the way how, for example, the criminal code works, in my understanding - which is rather unpalatable to a lot of people
     (Though if you're able and willing to do it, more power to you!)

     In general I want my software to be libre too, it's just I'm not entirely convinced that doing it through the courts - and in particular, through the copyright system - would be a very effective way to it

   • Embed this notice
     iced depresso (icedquinn@blob.cat)'s status on Monday, 24-Nov-2025 20:20:10 JST iced depresso

     in reply to

     • Haelwenn /элвэн/ :triskell:
     • iced depresso
     @lanodan @koakuma fwiw the bullshit of standing, mootness and laches aren't laws. its just stuff judges have issued upon themselves and we didn't kill them for it.
   • Embed this notice
     iced depresso (icedquinn@blob.cat)'s status on Monday, 24-Nov-2025 20:20:12 JST iced depresso

     in reply to

     • Haelwenn /элвэн/ :triskell:
     @lanodan @koakuma
     > Also public licences don't only need the author to enforce the license, so it doesn't have to be only your funds or time/energy.
     
     in the usa it has to be an author. part of a moronic paralegal concept of "standing," where judges try to get out of doing their jobs.
   • Embed this notice
     Haelwenn /элвэн/ :triskell: (lanodan@queer.hacktivis.me)'s status on Monday, 24-Nov-2025 20:20:13 JST Haelwenn /элвэн/ :triskell:

     in reply to

     • iced depresso
     @koakuma @icedquinn License enforcement isn't just through the courts, it can be sending a cease&desist or even just a license violation notice.
     And sending a DMCA might even be a possibility for some types of violations.
     
     Also public licences don't only need the author to enforce the license, so it doesn't have to be only your funds or time/energy.
   • Embed this notice
     「セル」cell (سل) (cell@pl.ebin.zone)'s status on Monday, 24-Nov-2025 20:24:39 JST 「セル」cell (سل)

     in reply to

     • 5init
     @5init @koakuma oracle vs google is like aliens vs predator
     both are evil and inevitably whoever wins we lose
     Haelwenn /элвэн/ :triskell: likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     5init (5init@misskey.id)'s status on Monday, 24-Nov-2025 20:24:40 JST 5init

     in reply to

     @koakuma@uwu.social It takes Oracle to afford decade-long court case against Google only for them to lose anyway. Regular people can NOT afford all that.
     
     But I wonder why they still avoid copyleft licensed software like a plague though. It's not like they'll lose against individual developer in the court if they stole few lines of open source code. Just drag them few months and they'll be fried with the amount of legal fees. Maybe they already did :elainawonders:

     Haelwenn /элвэн/ :triskell: likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     Haelwenn /элвэн/ :triskell: (lanodan@queer.hacktivis.me)'s status on Monday, 24-Nov-2025 20:26:15 JST Haelwenn /элвэн/ :triskell:

     in reply to

     • 「セル」cell (سل)
     • 5init
     @cell @5init @koakuma Well… thankfully in this one Oracle lost.
     Because the result of Oracle winning it would have been APIs being copyrightable in USA, destroying stuff like reverse-engineering.
   • Embed this notice
     iced depresso (icedquinn@blob.cat)'s status on Monday, 24-Nov-2025 20:27:01 JST iced depresso

     in reply to

     • Haelwenn /элвэн/ :triskell:
     @koakuma @lanodan wherever the papers are filed and the politics of the day. international lawsuits tends to be a goddamn mess.
   • Embed this notice
     Sun Microdevil Pte Ltd (koakuma@uwu.social)'s status on Monday, 24-Nov-2025 20:27:02 JST Sun Microdevil Pte Ltd

     in reply to

     • Haelwenn /элвэн/ :triskell:
     • iced depresso

     @lanodan @icedquinn Actually how would it work in international cases

     I presume all of the bigger (and many smaller projects) have many hands from multiple countries and legal systems participating in it, no?

   • Embed this notice
     Haelwenn /элвэн/ :triskell: (lanodan@queer.hacktivis.me)'s status on Monday, 24-Nov-2025 20:27:04 JST Haelwenn /элвэн/ :triskell:

     in reply to

     • iced depresso
     @icedquinn @koakuma Good thing USA isn't the world then.
   • Embed this notice
     iced depresso (icedquinn@blob.cat)'s status on Monday, 24-Nov-2025 20:32:20 JST iced depresso

     in reply to

     • Haelwenn /элвэн/ :triskell:
     • iced depresso
     @koakuma @lanodan in the USA you have to have some kind of business in a state to deal with state laws. otherwise its interstate affairs and those are the domain of federal courts and scotus.
     
     internationally there isn't a "federal court" to handle international affairs. the ICC doesn't do that. there are circuits of EU court that can wave their tiny fists menacingly but they can't really do shit to an american who lives in america and holds no properties overseas. similarly the federal court in the US ccan wave their tiny fist menacingly and do jack fucking shit to a German in Germany.
     
     so there has to be some business ties in a country that the suit is filed in for it to have any meaning.
   • Embed this notice
     iced depresso (icedquinn@blob.cat)'s status on Monday, 24-Nov-2025 20:33:11 JST iced depresso

     in reply to

     • Haelwenn /элвэн/ :triskell:
     @lanodan @koakuma > Some licences put a specific jurisdiction though but I have no idea how that works internationally.
     
     its a slap fight iirc. you might even be in a jurisdiction that does not permit waiving jurisdiction
   • Embed this notice
     Haelwenn /элвэн/ :triskell: (lanodan@queer.hacktivis.me)'s status on Monday, 24-Nov-2025 20:33:13 JST Haelwenn /элвэн/ :triskell:

     in reply to

     • iced depresso
     @koakuma @icedquinn Typically licenses are based on berne convention, so it's nearly worldwide, of course devil can be in the details, like with the USA effectively not recognising public rights.
     
     Some licences put a specific jurisdiction though but I have no idea how that works internationally.
   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Monday, 24-Nov-2025 21:24:59 JST 翠星石

     in reply to
     @koakuma >I thought the process of granting patents require you to prove that the thing has never been published by someone else?
     No it does not, especially in the USA - all you need to do is submit tortured enough legalize that covers a general idea for the US patent and most patent offices to grant a patent.
     
     The US patent office is legally meant to check their own records and deny a patent if there is prior art, but they have had the habit of not even checking their own records since the 1980s - for example the LZW algorithm was patented twice, with the first patent on LZW filed in June 1, 1983 and the second patent on LZW filed in June 20, 1983 - the US patent office approved both; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lzw?useskin=monobook#Patents (such algorithm was published in a mathematical paper before being patented).
     
     Previously US patents were first to invent and so if you could find and submit examples of prior art published before the patent file date, that would likely be a successful defense against patent extortion.
     
     But the USA then changed to first to patent, which means that even if a defense submitted a mountain of prior art and and it was obvious that the business saw the prior art and decided to patent that - the defense may not be successful.
     
     Patents only apply to the country those are filed in, meaning that originally such legalized extortion only applied to the USA - but of course the USA has processed to legislatively colonize the world to have similar laws (of course not limited to patents) to them (i.e. unless you change patent laws to suit more extortion via patents and extend your copyright period to be at lest 70 years after the author's death and a bunch more, we're going to sanction you).
     
     It's only big businesses that win with patents - small businesses and individuals always lose.
     
     IBM has so many patents that they almost always win the patent expensive extortion lottery.
     
     IBM often gones to smaller businesses with a list of patents and demands millions and if the targeted for extortion business looks at the patents and works out that none of them apply - IBM simply states that they can go back and get more and the smaller business usually ends up paying.
     
     IBM also always wins if a business that does anything tries to extort them with a patent - as IBM goes; "that's cute, but we have this patent and this patent and this patent that applies to your business practices - why don't we cross license?" - IBM gains yes another patent (IBM regards this benefit of its massive patent pool as 10x more valuable than the direct profits from that pool).
     
     The only time IBM ever loses is when occasionally a non-practicing entity sues with patents (as those only do but litigation, and patents do not apply to techniques for writing a threatening patent extortion letter, techniques for maliciously filing a legal case, or convincing a court to grant a wanted ruling) - IBM writes that cost off as the cost of doing business as it's smaller than the amount of money extorted.
     
     >there's a way to get libre software while completely avoiding the mess that is copyright and IP laws
     Imaginary property does not exist; https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html
     
     Unfortunately, thanks to governments, software is proprietary unless it's released under a free license.
     
     It would require overthrowing the US government and then the governments of other countries to make it so that software with the source code included is free software.
   • Embed this notice
     Sun Microdevil Pte Ltd (koakuma@uwu.social)'s status on Monday, 24-Nov-2025 21:25:01 JST Sun Microdevil Pte Ltd

     in reply to

     • 翠星石

     @Suiseiseki > a business can go and make changes to the software and then sue you with software patents

     How can they get one in the first place, anyway? I thought the process of granting patents require you to prove that the thing has never been published by someone else?

     > An individual doesn't always need to enforce the GPLv3-or-later personally - there are some lawyers that are willing to sue for you as long as they get the damages

     Sure, that's good, but then again, for a lot of us here retaining a lawyer isn't within our means

     In the end it's just me wishing that there's a way to get libre software while completely avoiding the mess that is copyright and IP laws, that is all~

   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Monday, 24-Nov-2025 21:38:26 JST 翠星石

     in reply to

     • :umu: :umu:
     @koakuma @a1ba Piracy requires a boat.
     
     Yes, copyright can't do anything about unauthorized copies of software, but an unauthorized copy of proprietary software is still proprietary software.
     
     With SaaSS, the client doesn't even get a copy of the software - so copyright can be totally irrelevant (although the typical case is for there to be proprietary software in the form of JavaScript to interface with the SaaSS).
   • Embed this notice
     Sun Microdevil Pte Ltd (koakuma@uwu.social)'s status on Monday, 24-Nov-2025 21:38:28 JST Sun Microdevil Pte Ltd

     in reply to

     • :umu: :umu:

     @a1ba Yupyupp, "termy" licenses is a tool and like any other tool it has its uses but I still feel like it's not ideal

     Also copyright has already been less relevant since the cracked software days already isn't it? Whatever you do there's going to be people pirating it :akkoderp:

     Nowadays people move to SAAS model to keep their secrets closer but copyright issues are probably even less relevant there, maybe

   • Embed this notice
     :umu: :umu: (a1ba@suya.place)'s status on Monday, 24-Nov-2025 21:38:29 JST :umu: :umu:

     in reply to

     • :umu: :umu:
     @koakuma (which is exactly the point you're making, if I understood it correctly)
   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Monday, 24-Nov-2025 22:00:03 JST 翠星石

     in reply to

     • iced depresso
     • :umu: :umu:
     • Phantasm
     @icedquinn @phnt @a1ba @koakuma The artistic license version 1 is a proprietary software license.
     
     Clarified Artistic and version 2 are fine, but those are pretty bad licenses.
     
     You need a copyleft license if you don't wish to allow proprietary versions and the best choice is AGPLv3-or-later.
     
     >just that its overly long winded for what it does do.
     The GPLv3 targeted the minimum length of license that is required to deal with the current state of software - if a license is significantly shorter - then there are significant problems the license did not address.
     
     The OSLv3 is a terrible license - it disallows normal development practices and sharing as it requires distributors to obtain explicit assent to the license or the license terminates and it is incompatible with all GPL versions.
     
     It also is not that short either - it's ~1630 words.
   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Monday, 24-Nov-2025 22:01:25 JST 翠星石

     in reply to

     • iced depresso
     • :umu: :umu:
     • Phantasm
     @icedquinn @phnt @a1ba @koakuma A free software trial preceded over by proprietary software developers would have serious bias issues - although 13 imbeciles would be about as bad.
   • Embed this notice
     iced depresso (icedquinn@blob.cat)'s status on Monday, 24-Nov-2025 22:01:27 JST iced depresso

     in reply to

     • iced depresso
     • :umu: :umu:
     • Phantasm
     @phnt @a1ba @koakuma i feel like people should be more bothered by the fact vaccines get a dedicated vaccine court packed with pro-vaccine doctors as judges for Reasons(tm) but in general no OTHER field of specialized knowledge apparently imposes competence requirements on the court.
     
     there is actually a decent case to be made that judges shouldn't be allowed to preside over shit they don't understand. i'm not sure how that should affect juries though.
     
     the "jury of your peers" is lineaged to the magna carta where it meant knights tried by knights. so in theory juries should be people of the same professional class as the person on trial, *not* 13 random morons. so a software trial *should* be presided over by other software developers as jurors.
     
     ironically whether you get jailed or pay big fines is determined by an imbecile but whether you keep your medical license actually does obey the magna carta (medical society hearings are tried by peers.) which is how you end up with people being convicted of stuff but keeping their licenses (they made some mistake that normies didn't like but in the context of the skillset it was within acceptable margins of error.)
   • Embed this notice
     iced depresso (icedquinn@blob.cat)'s status on Monday, 24-Nov-2025 22:03:25 JST iced depresso

     in reply to

     • 翠星石
     • :umu: :umu:
     • Phantasm
     @Suiseiseki @phnt @a1ba @koakuma
     > The OSLv3 is a terrible license - it disallows normal development practices and sharing as it requires distributors to obtain explicit assent to the license or the license terminates
     
     what are you on about. its the standard viral distribution clause.