namark @namark@qoto.org
Joined Jan 2020
@bonifartius @clacke if we're talking about this network, it's not very big actually, and it has yet to start attracting people to itself for its objective qualities. Instead many people are here because it's different, it's not the normie place, and we are not normies (which often also means we hate normies), and if one instance goes normie we can always switch to another, there is endless potential for that kind of drama here. There is a block strategy and a mock strategy of dealing with normies, and which one you choose is highly circumstantial.
suicide mission your squad of anonymous alcoholics on drugs like a BOS and get a new one with deathclaws
fallout tactics is the best fallout
@EVoCeO so you got so scared it made you forget like literally everything that happened?
@EVoCeO @SecondJon Pretty much everyone from the very beginning was saying that almost all people dying are elderly with comorbidities. What conspiracy theories were you guys under?
@freemo @alex I guess it's the usual "nobody here followed @igeljaeger", my bad, I'll bring him over.
@igeljaeger
I can reply to this one, and I see it too... stupid federation
@igel @freemo
@freemo I could see them cause I'm an nefarious subway tooter user, but couldn't reply. Through qoto I can't see them yes.
@georgia I used to wear this anarchy shirt at some point... some random guy thought it meant satanism... I though it meant monarchy... this other guy knew we were both wrong but couldn't explain why... press x to doubt equivalence relation
@igel I can't reply to @igeljaeger, why is that, you coward?!
re: software licensing long post
Even if your projects has 1000s of contributors if a decade is enough to re-license. People often say that it is impossible to upgrade from GPL2 to 3 (or anything else), but it is possible. Difficult but possible. Most notable projects that are mentioned in this context didn't even attempt to re-license. Many GNU project had no problems re-licensing cause of their contribution policies. When the leadership of the project admits that they did not understand the original license used and its purpose, that is not a problem with the license, it is a problem with the project. GPL is not meant to trap ignorant contributors, it is meant to attract people who actually want to joint the fight.
Regarding hobbyists or archivists, I don't understand what possible problems they might have with something like GPL. It might not be state of the art at that point, but it still respects all your freedoms by itself. You speak about "loosing restrictions", but there are no restrictions in GPL other than the restriction to not abuse other people. Your argument is not at the strongest with parity license, it only barely makes sense with the parity license, implying that the license is overextending, which I agree with from the brief description of it.
FSF does recommend different licenses in order to increase the competitiveness of the project, while still remaining free in ways that are most relevant. It's, again, not about tricking people and then going "aha! gotcha! now your stuff is ours!", it's about being as useful as possible without being essentially absorbed by proprietary software. People shouldn't (and wouldn't) choose free software because they have no other choice, they should choose it because it is objectively superior. My argument is that the parity license does not make the project that it is applied to more competitive, compared to GPL.
It is bizarre to me that GPL somehow acquired a reputation of being a overreaching license, and that it seems natural to make it even more overreaching or criticize it for being too restrictive. GPL creates a level playing field, so that free software has a good chance to compete and take over markets. The actual competition is not in the licensing terms, in is in the respective markets.
re: software licensing long post
@ml GPL/copyleft is not just avoiding corporate takeover, it is striving towards free software takeover. If you want to weaken copyright, weaken all copyright, not just what applies to free software, giving advantage to proprietary software. If after 10 years the project is irrelevant, then making it public domain is also irrelevant. If it is still relevant, then your extra clause at that point gives advantage to proprietary software just like any other permissive license.
Regarding toolchains, GPL already poses certain restriction, that they must be made available. If they happen to be proprietary, well then that is another battle in another market, and just requiring it to be free software does nothing other than disadvantage the the project in the specific market they are competing in.
Imagine there is a reasonably popular proprietary software platform, that is restricts its users to its toolchain. Under parity license would that mean that I will not be able to contribute configuration for that toolchain to the project? Now imagine somehow (cough LLVM) most major platforms become like this. Under parity license free software halts then?
It's all about making free software as competitive as possible in all relevant markets.
