Post @post@qoto.org

@david_colquhoun @stux

Wait what?

"Zionist Organization of America honors Trump, hails best friend Israel’s ever had in the White House"

https://www.jns.org/zoa-honors-trump-hails-best-friend-israels-ever-had-in-the-white-house/

"Netanyahu Defends Trump: 'He's Not Antisemitic, He Has Jewish Family'"

https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/2022-10-18/ty-article/.premium/netanyahu-defends-trump-hes-not-antisemitic-he-has-jewish-family/00000183-ebc8-d15c-a5eb-ffc89f190000

@geraldew

Indeed, this is what CLA (Contributors License Agreements) are for.

@samueljohnson @aral @Homebrewandhacking @EU_Commission

But you can iterate this reasoning over and over: it is not the national governament but the regional administration, no it is the municipality, no it is the airport, no it is an initiative by security, no by a cop...

@geraldew

I think it's important to understand what is the product: the software itself or something linked to it?

In case it's software I think it is fundamental to protect it with Copyleft and ad hoc commercial licenses when needed.

If the product is something else, for example technical support, then it is OK to promote the adoption with a permissive license.

The balance comes from how much time is spent on the product. If a company invest all of its resources for the development of an AGPL project and suddenly think to move to a permissive license there is something odd.

There will always be a X amount of money to fund the development of a competitor product starting from the new permissive release. At that point, after some months, the new proprietary product could phagocytize the userbase of the original one. Especially if the userbase doesn't care much about FOSS.

So I conclude that Copyleft is the minimum shield for a company that does only FOSS development. Who think Copyleft is for users is wrong. FOSS is for users rights, but Copyleft is for developers'.

@geraldew

Just checked your post but I don't think it's that simple.

Copyleft definitely makes sense for developers protecting their work (not only users) and even if someone want to use the software but don't want/can't comply with (A/L)GPL, the original developers can relicense their work with a commercial license.

Instead permissive licenses make sense if you want the wider adoption as possible because you are funded in some other way (for example I would require permissive licenses for software produced by public institutions).

I think with permissive licenses the corporations found their way to take advantage of FOSS. Instead with Copyleft it's FOSS developers that are taking advantage of corporations: "don't you want to comply with GPL and share your changes accordingly? OK but then fund our development with commercial licenses".

What's really detrimental is people not understanding how to use licenses properly.

@doctormo

Thank you very much for the contacts and also for your comment, indeed giving away AGPL out of nothing felt so odd to me that I was like "did I miss something?"

@geraldew

Google employees say they can't use AGPL licensed software and it makes sense if Google ban it for its codebases, but what's the point of limiting employees from running an app locally? 🤷🏻‍♂️

So the developers of this app just want everyone to be able to use it and probably don't understand the implications...

@simongray

Since you are into RDF, do you know that you can export a portion of your Logseq graph as RDF? Here there is the script:

https://github.com/logseq/nbb-logseq/tree/main/examples/linked-data

@EpiphanicSynchronicity

I understand, but maybe we don't agree on the definition of "ideological": the ideological reasoning is the opposite of rational reasoning (as argued by Marx). I provided practical consequences and it is enough for me to exclude ideology.

And it is not about "open source good, closed source bad": it's eventually about respecting the users freedom and sovereignty over their digital life (and consequently their life). If there is closed-source software that does so, fine.

And even if you don't have the time and the skills to modify Obsidian source code personally, the fact that people would be able to do so is also important in defining the balance of power between developers and users that can eventually become the developers of a fork.

For example Mastodon being Free Software means some instances modified the character limit for posts. On the instance I'm using the limit is 65 000, not 500 characters. So I am not affected by an idiotic limit that just lead users to make multiple posts; I can focus on content and not character count.

Indeed, pkm.social is managed by Obsidian enthusiasts while qoto.org by a freedom advocate.

If you really experience the freedom of Free Software, you will start to notice stupid limits everywhere.