🇳🇱
X.org server I think was the one that had to be abandoned, or was it XFree86.. one of the major X11 implementations had to be completely abandoned and rewritten as whatever replaced it.
@freemo Actually looking up the details, XFree86 wasn't copylefted or abandoned and rewritten - someone just finished off waning developer interest by adding credit requirements that were incompatible with the GPLv2 (despite the ease of achieving the same thing without being GPLv2-incompatible); https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XFree86?useskin=monobook#2004:_Licensing_controversy https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#XFree861.1License
In response to the poor license change, some developers forked a version before the change and made it into X.Org Server (only small changes were made after that version, so "completely abandoned and rewritten" to refer to rewriting small changes is completely wrong).
In response to the poor license change, some developers forked a version before the change and made it into X.Org Server (only small changes were made after that version, so "completely abandoned and rewritten" to refer to rewriting small changes is completely wrong).
Yea I remember when this a happened too .. I would download and run the latest XFree86 binaries instead of using the ones from Slackware. There was a whole kerfuffle about attribution. Xorg stayed GPL.
GPL/AGPL are for people who don't want their software to ever become part of an AWS/Azure offering or packaged commercially without code changes being released. But if you're writing a library in GPL (and it's not LGPL) don't expect anyone to use it. My current company has strict license checks as part of VC funding and we've removed and replaced parts of the code if it's discovered a dependent license is GPL (there's a CI check to prevent this now).
GPL/AGPL are for people who don't want their software to ever become part of an AWS/Azure offering or packaged commercially without code changes being released. But if you're writing a library in GPL (and it's not LGPL) don't expect anyone to use it. My current company has strict license checks as part of VC funding and we've removed and replaced parts of the code if it's discovered a dependent license is GPL (there's a CI check to prevent this now).
Follow
I have no real issue with anyone using GPL.. you are giving your time for free, put whatever rules on your contribution you want, im just happy your contributing.
But **I** will never contribute to a copyleft project, and I certainly never want to be limited with how I can use my own projects either. So I will certainly never support anything copyleft if ic an help it.
@freemo @djsumdog well then GPL is working as intended. its meant to cut off proprietarybros from the commons.
The vasy majority of my contributions are in no way proprietary and have no real use for me in a proprietary setting. Some other stuff does.
And yea, it is doing its job by cutting off developers from wanting to contribute to it, which is why copyleft has been dying out significantly in recent years and largely replaced with MIT and apache licenses.
The trend of GPL to isolate itself and push developers away by punishing the very people who release under it is exactly why its dying.
Just out of curiosity, do you use a Linux as your operating system? Or are you on Win/Mac?
Everything that use in your desktop environment, every single tool, came from the GPL era of the 90s/2000s. Even as some of the default licenses people use has changed, nothing on the Linux desktop would exist without the GPL and the impossibility of Microsoft to compete with truly free software (well without eventually trying to embrace, extend and extinguish it .. which is still hasn't done .. not really).
Even the Mastodon server you run is AGPLv3.
Even the Mastodon server you run is AGPLv3.
@djsumdog Linux is not an operating system, as it doesn't operate unless you at least add systemd (or another init); https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/init/main.c#n1492
Hey guys check it out! We've got a Richard M. Stallin over here! "WELL AKUCHULLY" "GNU+LINUX"
@djsumdog @Suiseiseki all this faggot does is recite the gnu faq. its pathetic
@pernia @djsumdog @Suiseiseki It's so funny RMS spending his whole life doing nothing but reciting the GNU faq but then Jeffrey Epstein getting caught is the one time when he decides to go off script and it's to defend the island LMAO
@pernia @djsumdog @Suiseiseki yes lmao he got kicked out of fsf for like a year for it and then was let back in
@pernia @djsumdog @Suiseiseki @get >pernia hates rms for no reason and doesnt know the only valid reason
@get @djsumdog @Suiseiseki "leaked emails" fox boomers don't know what a mailinglist is.
i want to see the actual email archives, shit sounding funny as hell
>child rape victim was probably entirely willing
i want to see the actual email archives, shit sounding funny as hell
>child rape victim was probably entirely willing
@get @Suiseiseki @djsumdog found it
https://itsfoss.com/richard-stallman-controversy/
The announcement of the Friday event does an injustice to Marvin Minsky:
“deceased AI ‘pioneer’ Marvin Minsky (who is accused of assaulting
one of Epstein’s victims [2])”
The injustice is in the word “assaulting”. The term “sepsual assault” is so vague and slippery that it facilitates accusation inflation: taking claims that someone did X and leading people to think of it as Y, which is much worse than X.
The accusation quoted is a clear example of inflation. The reference reports the claim that Minsky had seps with one of Epstein’s harem. (See https://www.theverge.com/2019/8/9/20798900/marvin-minsky-jeffrey-epstein-seps-trafficking-island-court-records-unsealed.)
Let’s presume that was true (I see no reason to disbelieve it).
The word “assaulting” presumes that he applied force or violence, in some unspecified way, but the article itself says no such thing.
Only that they had seps.
We can imagine many scenarios, but the most plausible scenario is that she presented herself to him as entirely willing. Assuming she was being coerced by Epstein, he would have had every reason to tell her to conceal that from most of his associates.
I’ve concluded from various examples of accusation inflation that it is absolutely wrong to use the term “sepsual assault” in an accusation.
Whatever conduct you want to criticize, you should describe it with a specific term that avoids moral vagueness about the nature of the criticism.
https://itsfoss.com/richard-stallman-controversy/
The announcement of the Friday event does an injustice to Marvin Minsky:
“deceased AI ‘pioneer’ Marvin Minsky (who is accused of assaulting
one of Epstein’s victims [2])”
The injustice is in the word “assaulting”. The term “sepsual assault” is so vague and slippery that it facilitates accusation inflation: taking claims that someone did X and leading people to think of it as Y, which is much worse than X.
The accusation quoted is a clear example of inflation. The reference reports the claim that Minsky had seps with one of Epstein’s harem. (See https://www.theverge.com/2019/8/9/20798900/marvin-minsky-jeffrey-epstein-seps-trafficking-island-court-records-unsealed.)
Let’s presume that was true (I see no reason to disbelieve it).
The word “assaulting” presumes that he applied force or violence, in some unspecified way, but the article itself says no such thing.
Only that they had seps.
We can imagine many scenarios, but the most plausible scenario is that she presented herself to him as entirely willing. Assuming she was being coerced by Epstein, he would have had every reason to tell her to conceal that from most of his associates.
I’ve concluded from various examples of accusation inflation that it is absolutely wrong to use the term “sepsual assault” in an accusation.
Whatever conduct you want to criticize, you should describe it with a specific term that avoids moral vagueness about the nature of the criticism.
@get Stop making shit up degenerate.
rms called Jeffrey Epstein a serial rapist and never defended the island.
He rather defended his late friend Minsky (who cannot defend himself as he's dead) from what turned out to be untrue allegations (he's one the few people who appeared to have a non-criminal reason to be on the island, as Epstein was a big MIT donator and it seems he requested that Minsky give a presentation about a nice technical topic with fancy words in return for the donations (Epstein instructed one of the victims to have sex with Minsky, but that didn't happen, presumably because Minsky said no)) and of course the proprietary software companies twisted that to say he supported Epstein, while covering up how Bill Gates was directly associated with Epstein and then idiots like you recite their propaganda without thinking.
rms writes the GNU articles, updating them to cover recent freedom issues, rather than merely reciting them.
rms called Jeffrey Epstein a serial rapist and never defended the island.
He rather defended his late friend Minsky (who cannot defend himself as he's dead) from what turned out to be untrue allegations (he's one the few people who appeared to have a non-criminal reason to be on the island, as Epstein was a big MIT donator and it seems he requested that Minsky give a presentation about a nice technical topic with fancy words in return for the donations (Epstein instructed one of the victims to have sex with Minsky, but that didn't happen, presumably because Minsky said no)) and of course the proprietary software companies twisted that to say he supported Epstein, while covering up how Bill Gates was directly associated with Epstein and then idiots like you recite their propaganda without thinking.
rms writes the GNU articles, updating them to cover recent freedom issues, rather than merely reciting them.
@Suiseiseki @djsumdog and what's your point? that your rotten nigger software is necessary to use it? because its not
@freemo @djsumdog they just hate copyleft because its doing its job.
there were always huge FUD pushes and smear campaigns and pushes to exile GPL code, until big tech discovered the network loophole. then suddenly GPL was fine because it didn't affect their ability to colonize the commons anymore. then AGPL comes along and fixes that, and suddenly GPL is bad again.
Except for VC frauds who were never open source, and were always just using that as a gimmick to submarine their way in before the license twist came.
(FWIW i think OSLv3 is a much cleaner license than AGPL; it's mostly the same thing, but significantly easier to read, even though one or two bullet points are left out on purpose because they didn't want to try to explain linking to judges.)
Rich Gold's _The Plenitude_ is a good book on that one. There's a chapter where he talks about "colonizing the commons" and the constant trend companies have to take what belongs to everyone, proprietarize it, and then seek to make people dependent on it. And they pretty much do it automatically, impulsively, thus why it is necessary to explicitly oxidize the behavior.
there were always huge FUD pushes and smear campaigns and pushes to exile GPL code, until big tech discovered the network loophole. then suddenly GPL was fine because it didn't affect their ability to colonize the commons anymore. then AGPL comes along and fixes that, and suddenly GPL is bad again.
Except for VC frauds who were never open source, and were always just using that as a gimmick to submarine their way in before the license twist came.
(FWIW i think OSLv3 is a much cleaner license than AGPL; it's mostly the same thing, but significantly easier to read, even though one or two bullet points are left out on purpose because they didn't want to try to explain linking to judges.)
Rich Gold's _The Plenitude_ is a good book on that one. There's a chapter where he talks about "colonizing the commons" and the constant trend companies have to take what belongs to everyone, proprietarize it, and then seek to make people dependent on it. And they pretty much do it automatically, impulsively, thus why it is necessary to explicitly oxidize the behavior.
@icedquinn @djsumdog @freemo
FSF claims so: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#OSL
Has anything changed?
FSF claims so: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#OSL
Has anything changed?
@mischievoustomato @icedquinn @djsumdog @freemo bsd0 and boost are the most idgaf license, outside of those meant to piss off lawyers on purpose (unlicense and wtfpl)
@affine @icedquinn @djsumdog @freemo i just care about being credited. after that i dont care what you do with my code, i just write my shit for myself or are ideas i get.
@affine isn't unlicense & cc0 just a common template to say "public domain or as close as we can get"? I don't see the lawyer trolling
@mischievoustomato @djsumdog @freemo @icedquinn
@mischievoustomato @djsumdog @freemo @icedquinn
@pi55d @djsumdog @freemo @icedquinn @mischievoustomato maybe this wasn't the intention, but I saw people butthurt at the unlicense (but not cc0)
@affine a few random searches, looks like unlicense just doesn't cut it outside of US huh
@djsumdog @freemo @icedquinn @mischievoustomato
@djsumdog @freemo @icedquinn @mischievoustomato
@freemo >I will never contribute to a copyleft project,
I have little interest in contributing to a project that won't defend the freedom of my work, so I have contributed to copylefted projects, but never to pushover-licensed ones.
>I certainly never want to be limited with how I can use my own projects either.
I suggest never using other developers libraries and writing everything yourself, if you feel like you're limited by not holding all of the copyright.
>which is why copyleft has been dying out significantly in recent years and largely replaced with MIT and apache licenses.
The fact is it hasn't - there exists more copylefted software now then in the past and freedom is being defended better than ever before.
Yes, microsoft and others have tricked many new developers into doing gratis work for them and their buddies, by making it seem that MIT expat and Apache 2.0 has "largely replaced" freedom-defending licenses, so more and more people make the mistake of using those licenses.
If they could, microsoft would make it that you couldn't even select say the GPLv3 as the license on github, but instead they've settled for making it ambiguous if a project is GPLv3-only or GPLv3-or-later (proven to be intentional as they refused to accept commits correcting this issue).
>The trend of GPL to isolate itself and push developers away by punishing the very people who release under it is exactly why its dying.
In reality, the floating island of freedom is bolstering itself slowly but surely with only high-quality developers, rather than welcoming low-quality ones, who will turn around and make the software proprietary.
I have little interest in contributing to a project that won't defend the freedom of my work, so I have contributed to copylefted projects, but never to pushover-licensed ones.
>I certainly never want to be limited with how I can use my own projects either.
I suggest never using other developers libraries and writing everything yourself, if you feel like you're limited by not holding all of the copyright.
>which is why copyleft has been dying out significantly in recent years and largely replaced with MIT and apache licenses.
The fact is it hasn't - there exists more copylefted software now then in the past and freedom is being defended better than ever before.
Yes, microsoft and others have tricked many new developers into doing gratis work for them and their buddies, by making it seem that MIT expat and Apache 2.0 has "largely replaced" freedom-defending licenses, so more and more people make the mistake of using those licenses.
If they could, microsoft would make it that you couldn't even select say the GPLv3 as the license on github, but instead they've settled for making it ambiguous if a project is GPLv3-only or GPLv3-or-later (proven to be intentional as they refused to accept commits correcting this issue).
>The trend of GPL to isolate itself and push developers away by punishing the very people who release under it is exactly why its dying.
In reality, the floating island of freedom is bolstering itself slowly but surely with only high-quality developers, rather than welcoming low-quality ones, who will turn around and make the software proprietary.
You do you.. most developers prefer apache license these days, im one.. you dont, and are in a minority, thats your right.
@freemo >most developers prefer apache license these days
Source?
I see that Apache 2.0 may be the most preferred license on github and other proprietary code hosts, but those aren't the only places to host software.
>are in a minority
Yes, freedom enjoyers have always been a minority, but just look how much has been done.
Source?
I see that Apache 2.0 may be the most preferred license on github and other proprietary code hosts, but those aren't the only places to host software.
>are in a minority
Yes, freedom enjoyers have always been a minority, but just look how much has been done.
@Suiseiseki @freemo what work do you do, jack off to richard stallman shitting on little girls chests? what a fucking loss
@icedquinn @freemo @djsumdog Remember that time that Ruby on Rails had to gut itself or go GPL, and chose to gut itself?
@icedquinn @djsumdog @freemo GPL was meant for jenken-huffing faggots like @Suiseiseki to jack off to childporn on their rotten thinkpad while giving them a false sense of security about it
@freemo @djsumdog @Suiseiseki @drewdevault
This doesn't make sense to me.
If you were the only software developer and that software is not dependent on GPL libraries to function, there is nothing to stop you, the copyright hder, from licensing the software under any license you choose, regardless of the license you have mad the software available to in the past.
If you weren't the only software developer, the only thing that changes is all copyright holders have to agree to the change.
GPL requires that *everyone else* has to follow the rules of GPL if they want to give other people copies. It *can't* restrict the copyright holder from relicensing under any terms.
Now, if you are modifying someone else's code and expecting to be able to relicense that as you please without their permission, well, too bad. The GPL is working as intended to make sure the commons stay as common.
Well, I guess you could do so anyways, but then you are violating copyright law and open to being sued.
This doesn't make sense to me.
If you were the only software developer and that software is not dependent on GPL libraries to function, there is nothing to stop you, the copyright hder, from licensing the software under any license you choose, regardless of the license you have mad the software available to in the past.
If you weren't the only software developer, the only thing that changes is all copyright holders have to agree to the change.
GPL requires that *everyone else* has to follow the rules of GPL if they want to give other people copies. It *can't* restrict the copyright holder from relicensing under any terms.
Now, if you are modifying someone else's code and expecting to be able to relicense that as you please without their permission, well, too bad. The GPL is working as intended to make sure the commons stay as common.
Well, I guess you could do so anyways, but then you are violating copyright law and open to being sued.
