Shamar @Shamar@qoto.org

@mntmn

I can't find doc for interscheme... is it free software?

@clacke

@newt

Uhm... sure, maybe there is no "perfectly" just system, just like there is no perfect circle or perfect sphere in the real world.

Does it means that a sphere system is unconceivable?
If not, why should a just system be unconceivable?

Do we live in a just system?
No.

Could we live in a MORE just system?
Sure.

Now, I do not know exactly where you live but I'd guess it's somewhere in the US or in one of their colony.

I can really relate to your feeling: after decades of oppression it's totally natural to surrender and internalize the oppressor propaganda as if it was not just true, but the only possibly truth.

But, well... it's not.

"Homo homini lupus" is a very inefficient and irrational way of living together.

The energy each individual spend to compete with everybody else is subtracted to more productive tasks.

And obviously there are many alternatives.

One are gift societies, like nomadelfia https://www.nomadelfia.it/en/

But a less radical one is simply to produce common goods for a community, binding each member to rules to access such goods.
Community, commons and similar words all derive from latin "cum-munis" which meant "bound together by rules and mutually responsible".

Freed from competition, people can do much more with their time and energy!

But obviously, this simple rational consideration is not going to shaken your beliefs in individualism... that's not how oppressive religions work.

In any case... good luck!

@Ted @duponin

@newt

I'm not sure I understand what you describe as a risk for the smaller company in your example.

Suppose that they actually release their super cool software (not algorithm) as AGPL and a competitor includes it in his own codebase: then they are violating the small company copyright for profit, from a legal perspective a criminal act that would lead them to jail.

As for Google, I know why they don't want to use AGPL code... which to my eyes is a great advantage of such license.

The objection about Vivaldi dying in poverty is a good one, but easily dismissed: the problem is NOT the fact his art is common good, but the fact he lived in an unjust system.

And this is actually a huge problem today too.

BUT people living in an unjust system can fight such system... or not.

I do.

@Ted @duponin

@izaya

Proper sci-fi (eg #AI) or trashy one (AI + #blockchain)?

@newt

I don't.
On the contrary I expect most people to NOT subscribe my ideas, just because I've seen this happen so many times.

I'm really interested in your perspective, mostly because I do not understand it.
Being slaves of a common master (or few common master) is not enough to collaborate.

But in an individualist and materialist perspective, I see it's the best one can hope.

In a way, it's the curse of dimensionality at work.

@Ted @duponin

@newt

Mozart's music is common good.
So is Bethoven's or Vivaldi.

Shakespeare poems are common goods. And Montale's too.

Actually most of human knowledge is common good.

A huge amount of software is common good. I'd argue that most global cpu cycles at any given time this year are running free software that IS common good.

This does not means, in any way, that you shouldn't be paid for creating it if you want to.

So I deduce your is a fundamental mistrust in society, in the communities around you that could benefit from your work if it was available.

To be fair, you might be right on this. There is a huge risk we evolve back to egocentric apes unable to collaborate if not under the rule of few... owners.

As for me, I choose to still hope for the better from our specie.

Anyway... thank for sharing!

@Ted @duponin

@newt

Fine... but why?

I mean, is this a philosophical hate against common good and the commons or something you consider pragmatic, apolitical... such as profit in a capitalist world or something like that?

Even if we do not agree on this matter (mostly because we do not agree), I'd really like to learn your perspective.

@Ted @duponin

@newt

BUT Google does not use or extend AGPL software. Why?

I'd argue that a strong copyleft is better than a permissive license against steer manpower.

And that against such big corporations not even keeping the software closed source provide an effective protection.

The Hacking License, instead, gives the original authors full (non exclusive) copyright and patent grants on any derived work.

@Ted @duponin

@Ted

It's somewhat funny, but very incorrect.
Even MIT and BSD impose obligations on people builing on licensed code, just fewer than a #copyleft.

Actually, such swallow depiction of free software licenses is quite similar to calling int64_t as "integer". 😅

As for an even stronger copyleft, I wrote the #HackingLicense: http://www.tesio.it/documents/HACK.txt

I must admit that I'm not yet happy with its formulation, but it can give an idea of what I hate in weaker copylefts like the #AGPLv3.
I'm going to remove the "organizations" thing. Making it shorter would be nice but apparently I can't without opening to corporate abuse one way or another.

In any case, if you want to give it a read and show me a way it could advantage big corps, I'll promise I'll study a fix for that.

@newt @duponin

@newt

Actually the problem with #GPL and #AGPL is that they are not strong enough to protect and reserve the knowledge that free software expresses to the commons.

Full access to software sources and full right to hack it, just like writings and any other human expression, is the most fundamental human right.

Preventing such right to any human is preventing them to be human, a specie that defines itself as *homo sapiens sapiens*.

@duponin

@newt

Exactly.
So why should we adopt such self-deception by calling something that is not an integer "integer" instead of building something that actually work as an integer?

Early optimization?

Or maybe we think that programmers cannot properly handle rings (as they cannot handle overflow errors)?

I'd argue that such belief is a little "paternalist" and well... wrong.

So we know that people cannot properly handle such corner case... why not make their management mandatory from the start?

@newt

I'm a programmer. 😉

It's not an integer.
It's NOT a theoretical argument, indeed overflows happen.

There are three possible solutions to this: force people to rationalize that "it's not an integer, but... who cares?", making it an actual integer (whatever it costs computationally... but you know.. halting problem) or to name such in another way.

The first increase cognitive load for no reason: it's accidental complexity or, if you prefer, a global technical debt.

Another example: division should not be defined on types that include zero. You shouldn't be able to construct a type for which division is defined, with a zero.

Now in a world with JavaScript and C++, we know programmers can rationalize basically anything.

But still... I think it's worth to imagine better worlds.