Post 9vG7aDaGCY60cdhQLg by AlexMax@icosahedron.website
(DIR) More posts by AlexMax@icosahedron.website
(DIR) Post #9vG4sqsCYzcDpHHj7o by sir@cmpwn.com
2020-05-21T03:11:43Z
0 likes, 3 repeats
How would you feel if SourceHut required all public projects to have either a (1) FSF approved free software license, (2) an OSI approved open source license, or (3) a Creative Commons license?
(DIR) Post #9vG50GAqtUGQK2XbQ8 by sir@cmpwn.com
2020-05-21T03:12:58Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
Oh, and feel free to reply to explain your answer in more detail
(DIR) Post #9vG588UZL5zqoVWEu8 by avalos@cybre.space
2020-05-21T03:13:53Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@sir SourceHut the instance, or SourceHut the software?
(DIR) Post #9vG5FAbNtQVnNu3q3k by sir@cmpwn.com
2020-05-21T03:14:23Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@avalos the instance
(DIR) Post #9vG5HRMMYjH9w97Kim by alex@gleasonator.com
2020-05-21T03:16:49.179805Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@sir You could let people pay you to host non-foss
(DIR) Post #9vG5lsV8DEVonmjTs0 by icyphox@freeradical.zone
2020-05-21T03:19:42Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@sir Do it. It'd be great if it also had a no-CoC policy too, heh.
(DIR) Post #9vG61CbLlJxZUAwrSK by AlexMax@icosahedron.website
2020-05-21T03:21:05Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@sir I do think that license limitations are good in theory, but in practice I'd prefer to leave the door open to things like the BSL and the License Zero Parity/Prosperity license - things that are in the spirit, but do not conform to those definitions to the letter.
(DIR) Post #9vG68SaWiqgR5w1YeG by sir@cmpwn.com
2020-05-21T03:22:14Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@AlexMax strong disagree, they are not in the spirit of these licensesExcluding these licenses would kind of be the point
(DIR) Post #9vG6HL3c5ikaLPrYLQ by chmod777@linuxrocks.online
2020-05-21T03:25:49Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@sirWhat about licenses that have partial approval by OSI such as Unlicense. It is considered free but not recommended by OSI. I have worked on projects that use this license where would they fall?
(DIR) Post #9vG6QDgGt0TQ4aBBxY by montagsoup@aleph.land
2020-05-21T03:26:09Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@sir How would this be enforced? Making you pick a license from a list? Having an automated process that checks for a license file that matches an approved one?I'm mostly asking because I like to dedicate projects to the public domain, usually by putting a dedication in the README. It doesn't legally count as a license since I can't provide a license for a work I no longer hold a copyright for, and it's not super machine readable, but it still gives people all the rights needed to be FSF and OSI approved.
(DIR) Post #9vG6YUpD1pRFYrJ4c4 by sir@cmpwn.com
2020-05-21T03:26:21Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@chmod777 aye, if it qualifies for the OSD it would be permitted. Does not need to be recommended
(DIR) Post #9vG6g7lKesNyLo89js by dmoonfire@octodon.social
2020-05-21T03:26:34Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@sir I'm assuming you mean the hosted version verses the code they can self host on their own resources.But, assuming yes, I'm in favor of it because organizations who want to have open repos with other licenses can host their own services.If no, probably still in favor but just a little less strongly. :)Regardless, I'd like *all* public repos to have *a* license regardless of the results. I dislike limbo projects.
(DIR) Post #9vG6ooNu4euQrEJYYK by xinayder@fosstodon.org
2020-05-21T03:26:35Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@sir I don't think most users would agree, but if you made something like "open source portal" that required all of its projects to use OSI approved licenses, then yes.also, would be interesting if you shared the most popular licenses used by projects in sr.ht
(DIR) Post #9vG743jXI0iQnyhfyC by sir@cmpwn.com
2020-05-21T03:26:49Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@montagsoup I would put it in the terms of service and then reach out to projects who are out of compliance as it comes up.Use CC-0 if you want to public domain your stuff
(DIR) Post #9vG7BkTOmaETO3p1Xc by swashberry@social.linux.pizza
2020-05-21T03:28:04Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@sir The FSF and the OSI have good intentions, but I'm extremely wary of organizations taking it upon themselves to assert what is or is not a "free" or "open-source" work. In reality, people choose a variety of ways to make their software free, and peoples' choices shouldn't be restricted by arbitrary authorities.You might agree that copyright law has gotten out of hand in recent years, but the FSF & OSI take advantage of copyright law just the same to assert their interpretation of FLOSS.
(DIR) Post #9vG7IoqwtfK2zwD13g by sir@cmpwn.com
2020-05-21T03:29:15Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@swashberry the OSD and four freedoms are both good models, and mostly equivalent, having two organizations maintaining separate (but largely identical) lists of licenses helps to keep the system honest.The compliant here seems kind of philisophical and not rooted in fact
(DIR) Post #9vG7aDaGCY60cdhQLg by AlexMax@icosahedron.website
2020-05-21T03:34:19Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@sir I guess I don't understand why they're deserving of a targeted exclusion.
(DIR) Post #9vG7gQGNyLxTgUMUK0 by sir@cmpwn.com
2020-05-21T03:34:42Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@AlexMax free & open source software has NEVER been about non-commercialization.
(DIR) Post #9vG7qbdwW6jNsHEi92 by xinayder@fosstodon.org
2020-05-21T03:40:04Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@sir @montagsoup how would dual licensing be handled?
(DIR) Post #9vG828VUfdoSz7mYk4 by sir@cmpwn.com
2020-05-21T03:40:36Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@xinayder @montagsoup acceptable so long as 100% of the code/assets are covered by at least one license which meets these critera
(DIR) Post #9vG8g4NHSERHkeyxhA by AlexMax@icosahedron.website
2020-05-21T03:47:28Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@sir BSL basically automatically turns the code into a GPLv2+ compatible license after a set date (otherwise it can't legally be called BSL). I dunno, to me that seems completely reasonable, assuming the conditions before the change date aren't too unreasonable.I can understand being against non-commercial licenses with no expiration date, so that's Prosperity out, but Parity is a copyleft license.
(DIR) Post #9vG906BsPbI9AxCOLw by sir@cmpwn.com
2020-05-21T03:48:26Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@AlexMax license your shit like that if you want, but it wouldn't be welcome on my platform under these terms. These are not free or open source licenses, nor are they in the spirit of free and open source, and they are unacceptable by my standards - and by the well-documented standards of the FSF and OSI.
(DIR) Post #9vG9YP3EnLCvW6W1gm by eldaking@mastodon.social
2020-05-21T03:52:57Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@sir I feel divided. I like the idea in theory, but I'm just not sure if the lists/definitions are "good enough".I feel like it is certainly reasonable, but I'm not sure if it would result in better or worse practices.
(DIR) Post #9vG9fpAw42gmZBefYG by sir@cmpwn.com
2020-05-21T03:53:21Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@eldaking what sorts of criteria or licenses are omitted by the OSD or four freedoms
(DIR) Post #9vG9mqHMMLIU150RSS by swashberry@social.linux.pizza
2020-05-21T03:53:52Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@sir That's an arguable point, but you didn't use the OSD or Four Freedoms, you used the word of the FSF and OSD. Just to provide one example, Coraline Ada Ehmke, a person who seriously and explicitly advocates for an anti-meritocracy stance, was a serious contender for the board of directors for the OSI.In the end she didn't end up getting in, but if she *had*, and you had named the OSI as an authority figure on what is or is not open-source, you would have seriously fucked over your users.
(DIR) Post #9vG9zBYr3gqDUs4iR6 by sir@cmpwn.com
2020-05-21T03:55:33Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@swashberry Coraline's licenses do not meet the OSD or four freedoms, and it's incredibly obvious by anyone's reading. If she had been elected she would have had to *change* the OSD.If the OSI or FSF stops being a good steward of these definitions, then we can change the policies on SourceHut. For now, I think they're doing a fine job.
(DIR) Post #9vGA5pXLLKR3DUXKHQ by swashberry@social.linux.pizza
2020-05-21T03:56:13Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@sir I have serious issues with the Free Software Foundation as well, and their protectionist demand that people cough up their source code. The free market of ideas doesn't demand that people reveal *how* they got a solution, merely that a solution exists. By requiring that people reveal their source code, the FSF demands that people surrender market competition in favor of homogeneous compliance to, again, a completely arbitrary authority figure, which to me seems very not-free.
(DIR) Post #9vGADTe8cBVrdpMRg8 by sir@cmpwn.com
2020-05-21T03:56:52Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@swashberry I reject your axioms, access to source code is important and the entire point of the idea presented here
(DIR) Post #9vGAPtT6R2CrCa7VNg by magical@tiny.tilde.website
2020-05-21T03:57:56Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@sir an edge case: I have a disassembly project (https://github.com/magical/CHIPS.EXE), which is legally in sort of a gray area. It intentionally doesn't have a license and i don't think i'd be comfortable adding one. Obviously the code is there for anyone to inspect and contribute to, in the spirit of open source, but any use is "at your own risk", since i'm not in a position to say what kind of use is legal or not.
(DIR) Post #9vGAXkcVDW5m4lGO92 by sir@cmpwn.com
2020-05-21T03:58:07Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@swashberry oh, and I don't believe everything in life is driven by market forces
(DIR) Post #9vGAdeEjrYYQ12xZuy by sir@cmpwn.com
2020-05-21T03:58:23Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@magical this is already against the sr.ht terms of service
(DIR) Post #9vGBIMd8EDmbHbmhMG by swashberry@social.linux.pizza
2020-05-21T04:06:22Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@sir Access to source code is already implied by the fact that the source code is hosted in a public repository.The question I'm posing, and you can criticize this for being philosophical if you like, is what made you found SourceHut in the first place? Apart from a different implementation, what was your motive? Was it to create a platform where your works wouldn't be restricted arbitrarily? If so, would it be better to arbitrate what is FOSS yourself, or to grant more freedoms to your users?
(DIR) Post #9vGBS7qW3AyAKJhQiO by magical@tiny.tilde.website
2020-05-21T04:08:37Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@sir fair enough
(DIR) Post #9vGBd7ug8nX1iitNtA by swashberry@social.linux.pizza
2020-05-21T04:11:30Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@sir Not by market forces, no. We're all individuals, after all. But what choices we have, what options are available to us, is subject to the will of those around us, at least as long as we live in an authoritarian society. Market forces are those created as an emergent property of those around us: what products are available, for what reasons, et cetera, all as a result of social (or legal) pressures from our peers.
(DIR) Post #9vGBlWJTJ4L3iCUWjA by swashberry@social.linux.pizza
2020-05-21T04:12:09Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@sir Ultimately what we're trying to do is find the use-case which benefits the most people, and it seems silly to me to say that isn't the one which benefits the most *individuals*, since it's individuals and their influence which shape the market as a collective.
(DIR) Post #9vGCLInz0QdqF7pDDk by AlexMax@icosahedron.website
2020-05-21T04:20:44Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@sir Yeah I think this is the fundamental disagreement between you and me. I don't think the FSF and OSI should be the only arbiter of acceptable licensees in the open source community.
(DIR) Post #9vGCV0yQ9sglppL34K by sir@cmpwn.com
2020-05-21T04:21:36Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@AlexMax and I don't think you're a member of the open source community at all. You're a member of some other community, because what you're advocating clearly and objectively is not open source, and you're mounting an active attack against something I hold dear.
(DIR) Post #9vGDAvN3Na4wcYqP9k by AlexMax@icosahedron.website
2020-05-21T04:36:36Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@sir I think you're confusing me for somebody else. All of my open source projects thus far have been released under OSI-compatible licenses, and the open source projects I've contributed to have - to the best of my recollection - also been under OSI-compatible licenses.
(DIR) Post #9vGDXDTYkKRX8wW7AO by skyfaller@jawns.club
2020-05-21T04:48:07Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@sir This could have an educational benefit. Many people do not understand that open source software requires more than simply publishing their source code.I frequently come across small projects on Github that have no license anywhere in the repository. Often they're an interesting foundation I might like to fork and build upon, but if the original author is unreachable, there's nothing to be done.GitHub provides a few gentle nudges, but making it a hard requirement might be a better move.
(DIR) Post #9vGH82IvXnZN4YnC64 by fraggle@octodon.social
2020-05-21T05:27:54Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@sir @AlexMax I don't like the license zero crap either but it's a bit of a shame you had to turn the discussion personal!
(DIR) Post #9vGI72r46y4iRdqrNg by waterbear@scicomm.xyz
2020-05-21T05:39:30Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@sir it would be easier to vote if there was a list of licenses approved by any of these bodies
(DIR) Post #9vGOCl6hbr9IrbH0zI by wolf480pl@mstdn.io
2020-05-21T06:48:49Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@sirImagine you want to mirror some third party project under a strange license.
(DIR) Post #9vGY5zP33gduiSGW5A by czero1@mastodon.technology
2020-05-21T08:38:38Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@sir "free" means "I can pick any license for my projects". If this is not the case for sr.ht, then I'm not going to use this instance.Also, "FSF or OSI approved license" means empowering these organizations. I despise them.
(DIR) Post #9vGYLp4nDjvZK0LCqW by michiel@social.tchncs.de
2020-05-21T08:41:22Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@sir @AlexMax endlessly arguing about licenses has been a staple of the open source development for longer than at least the OSI has existed ;)
(DIR) Post #9vGZKsi0KVH2FgnSxE by mendel@cmpwn.com
2020-05-21T08:52:13Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@sir my understanding is that by default, ie before you choose a license, it is copyrighted.that would be "source-available"? ie, you can't publish modifications, correct?
(DIR) Post #9vGay7i2ajzE1W5cye by wolf480pl@mstdn.io
2020-05-21T09:11:50Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@sir Remember when you sent your GNU ethical repository criteria self-evaluation? You argued against forcing users to use free licenses (A4), and you said:> I also reckon that source-available software is better thanproprietary software, so de-platforming source-available software wouldjust increase the amount of proprietary software out there.Has your opinion on this changed?
(DIR) Post #9vGbX10xTVKrOYZmGO by mort@fosstodon.org
2020-05-21T09:17:13Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@sir It's actually a pretty big legal trap to have a public project up on a code hosting site, with an open-source aesthetic, but with a license which doesn't provide the features from a license we expect from an open-source project. One great example is this fucking project: https://github.com/AU-COVIDSafe/mobile-android/blob/master/LICENSE.mdLeaving projects like that up, or projects without a license (hence all rights reserved), is just asking for people to accidentally break the law.
(DIR) Post #9vGbodDofqT4oezSue by mort@fosstodon.org
2020-05-21T09:19:03Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@sir It's actually a pretty big legal trap to have a public project up on a code hosting site, with an open-source aesthetic, but with a license which doesn't provide the freedoms we expect from an open-source project. One great example is this fucking project: https://github.com/AU-COVIDSafe/mobile-android/blob/master/LICENSE.mdLeaving projects like that up, or projects without a license (hence "all rights reserved"), is just asking for people to accidentally break the law.
(DIR) Post #9vGc8Ax3UZD4veTC3U by foxcpp@puppo.space
2020-05-21T09:23:52Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@sir Would it also apply for unlisted repositories?
(DIR) Post #9vGdDIuTQk8H0tGtrU by cbracken@mastodon.social
2020-05-21T09:34:19Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@sir There are loads of hosting options for projects that don't fall under an approved OSI/FSF/CC licence. A forge with a policy of open sharing of code and content under terms that guarantee freedoms and filters out questionable licences? Yes please.
(DIR) Post #9vGfWc7SQypW06gE9A by af@social.librem.one
2020-05-21T10:02:54Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@sir what about https://spdx.org/licenses/ and blue oak license?
(DIR) Post #9vGn91DsFPyQXbwPyq by stick@infosec.exchange
2020-05-21T11:27:14Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@sir I oppose, only because I pay for sr.ht and thus feel I should be able to use whatever license I please (even no license or all rights reserved). But for non-paying accounts....
(DIR) Post #9vGojWOfv6HnbaxmBE by sir@cmpwn.com
2020-05-21T11:45:19Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@foxcpp yeah
(DIR) Post #9vGot7VfIyPrJZoGBM by sir@cmpwn.com
2020-05-21T11:47:28Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@af no, SPDX aims to list comprehensively with no particular criteria or defense of any specific rights; and Blue Oak is a bad license
(DIR) Post #9vGp4fzXRVkLRZIE9Q by sir@cmpwn.com
2020-05-21T11:48:47Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@stick why does it follow that, because you pay for it, you may use any license? We already have other restrictions on using the platform that apply even if you pay
(DIR) Post #9vGqONsyZMcr2FBWG8 by stick@infosec.exchange
2020-05-21T12:03:40Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@sir I don't have a good answer; it's why I said "I feel" in my reply. I do think it's a crappy practice to change TOS after someone has already paid for a subscription.
(DIR) Post #9vGqWpy42q30RlaywK by sir@cmpwn.com
2020-05-21T12:05:21Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@stick I would probably offer advance notice and refunds for disgruntled customers if implementing such a change
(DIR) Post #9vGtgQMoNmtro0Qy1Y by mplammers@fosstodon.org
2020-05-21T12:41:34Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@sir Opposed for now because I think people should take the time to select the right license. Once you publish a beta with one license, that can restrict you from changing it later. I think this could pose to be an unfree position for tinkering developers who may just want to come right out of the gate writing code without deciding on its business and license model first.
(DIR) Post #9vGuKUSiZlZe5eIl60 by liamcottam@mastodon.technology
2020-05-21T12:47:15Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@sir too many times I've come across public code only for it to be hindered by licenses. If it's not free/open-source, I don't want to see it.
(DIR) Post #9vGwDV6ZzFevxuk1Kq by stick@infosec.exchange
2020-05-21T13:08:48Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@sir I think that's mostly fair; someone who builds an involved workflow and/or large community around your platform, only to be told "get lost" at the end of their currently-paid subscription might be upset but in the end it is your platform. That _feels_ dangerous to me, though; how soon until you kick off all npm modules, or C++ projects? 😆
(DIR) Post #9vH3m3x9d2iRZMlCQy by eldaking@mastodon.social
2020-05-21T14:33:33Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@sir It's not a specific thing.It's more like "people might be interested in using a really cool license that isn't recognized by the foundations, but instead they choose one of the famous but not ideal licenses".Particularly as the situation change over time (I'm thinking things like the GPLv2 not having provisions for compatibility with later versions, for example).
(DIR) Post #9vHFOD7Z5dhKVG1Szo by ngp@mastodon.sdf.org
2020-05-21T16:43:30Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@sir assuming it's limited to public projects, I'm in favor of this. I'd like my private/unlisted repos to have no such restrictions, as I often to not bother including a license for things that are never intended to be publicly available.
(DIR) Post #9vHJ05Gh2CFj0z2kFc by zethra@fosstodon.org
2020-05-21T17:24:11Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@sir have somewhat mixed feelings on this. I like the idea. I want more foss in world and I think an explicitly foss forge could be good advocacy. On the other hand I'd be afraid that it could alienate certain people, pushing them away from Source Hut. Maybe we don't want people who are anti-foss our community though? Ultimately, I think I come out in favor. It'll be interesting to see how this shakes out.
(DIR) Post #9vHLreDU1o2Yf3D8BE by xactoknife@mastodon.social
2020-05-21T17:56:15Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@sir that raises the question of what would you do regarding projects like JMRI that is firmly open source but doesn't want to take on a license for whatever reason
(DIR) Post #9vHlS1tjxJf5O4QAds by shine@mastodon.technology
2020-05-21T22:42:57Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@sir what are the other options for public projects with non-permissive licenses?I mean, what's the point of an apple you can only look at but not touch or eat?
(DIR) Post #9vHvLerNhGRpjwuzR2 by sir@cmpwn.com
2020-05-22T00:34:15Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@shine they can use other forges. I don't understand your analogy
(DIR) Post #9vHvxsEgPjhoEF2Y9g by Valenoern@floss.social
2020-05-22T00:41:50Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@mplammers as I understand it, "oh no I can't decide on a copyleft for my prototype" is one of the few actually good justifications for permissive licenses to existnot having any license up is a real issue as you can see in other toots here,while the MIT or even BSD isn't actually a huge commitment
(DIR) Post #9vHvyy2IKoCUVVlcHo by shine@mastodon.technology
2020-05-22T00:40:16Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@sir I didn't mean it terms of other forges. I was talking about the projects themselves.if you have a project that doesn't use a permissive license; but for some reason ( I can't think of any ) decide to make it public. I don't get what's the use of it.you can "look" at the project, but not "touch" it.Thinking harder, one reason I can come up with is for security research purposes; but that can easily be solved with a closed project and an NDA. What else?
(DIR) Post #9vHxoitzwlKiaD853Y by rune@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2020-05-22T01:02:04Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@mplammers As the copyright holder you can license the software however you want. You can relicense it under new incompatible licenses, provide dual licensing, or even give special licenses for individuals if you want.Of course, if you accepted other people's contributions you will be stuck if they don't all agree to a license change.
(DIR) Post #9vIZrpyBvFn5d70DlQ by ghewgill@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2020-05-22T08:06:24Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@sir Would that include public domain as one of the approved schemes?
(DIR) Post #9vIrWk3KWdO0N7UrR2 by jordan31@fosstodon.org
2020-05-22T11:26:19Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@shine @sir funny thing, I'm actually OK with that type. At the very sole of it, I just want the option to see and read the source code to verify nothing shady is going on.
(DIR) Post #9vIrhNysvZzV6SUd8a by jordan31@fosstodon.org
2020-05-22T11:28:44Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@sir hmm what if the project uses a model where you only get the source or access to it once you buy the product?
(DIR) Post #9vIzPEN0imXXiTdDrU by sir@cmpwn.com
2020-05-22T12:53:43Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@jordan31 this is acceptable if the source uses a free/open license
(DIR) Post #9vIzT9I7Xw0z7gDFTc by sir@cmpwn.com
2020-05-22T12:53:59Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@ghewgill this is what CC-0 is for
(DIR) Post #9vJ8BAKDrYWKhjhBa4 by shine@mastodon.technology
2020-05-22T14:31:51Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@jordan31 sometimes even I'm curious to check out what is running under the hood but not really modify the source. or sometimes, just to compile the source to see if it is the real deal that the actual binaries run too.but then again, I do all of that with open licensed projects; not proprietary ones.I guess this could be an edge-case; but yes, it might make sense.so, coming back to @sir's original question; I guess, my answer would be 'oppose' now. ( I actually did not vote though )
(DIR) Post #9vKz8QEjjlRBuffNjs by fruechtchen@ruhr.social
2020-05-23T11:59:59Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@sir i think BSD people would not use your service then. Especially OpenBSD.So i'd oppose.
(DIR) Post #9vKzFqmfQvu2H74yUS by sir@cmpwn.com
2020-05-23T12:00:15Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@fruechtchen BSD licese is both FSF and OSD compliant
(DIR) Post #9vKzNWIJUsSB2oXSGO by fruechtchen@ruhr.social
2020-05-23T12:02:18Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@sir oh, then nevermind.
(DIR) Post #9vLGvfr49jm5lKfKQC by kick@blob.cat
2020-05-23T15:20:53.907304Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@sir For the record, it's not an either-or for FSF licenses v. OSI licenses, is it? Either would be fine?OSI is broader and includes licenses that the FSF doesn't approve, and while I think that's great in some cases, it does kind of make me wonder if they'll eventually let a source available-adjacent license slip through.
(DIR) Post #9vLHRgs5ub38BLPg6y by kick@blob.cat
2020-05-23T15:26:40.999348Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@sir I think the only problem is that occasionally you might run up on edge cases; like if someone were to want to mirror TUHS for example, UNIX v8+ is under a nc license, but has obvious historical value.But there are other places to have archives of old code, so it'd be rational to not care in that instance.
(DIR) Post #9vLI7wOwYwUQVdvOQC by sir@cmpwn.com
2020-05-23T15:32:52Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@kick yes, a license which is approved by one and not the other would be acceptable
(DIR) Post #9vLJPNvrYYAelwCizg by a_breakin_glass@cybre.space
2020-05-23T15:47:28Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@sir wouldn't allowing all CC licenses mean allowing CC BY-ND
(DIR) Post #9vLJVO7lksjN6adUCO by sir@cmpwn.com
2020-05-23T15:47:39Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@a_breakin_glass yes
(DIR) Post #9vLWYNNcHIop4Mnrw8 by a_breakin_glass@cybre.space
2020-05-23T18:14:02Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@sir huh
(DIR) Post #9vPAccMn4xuWLgsGYq by mplammers@fosstodon.org
2020-05-25T12:29:03Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@rune > if you accepted other people's contributions you will be stuck if they don't all agree to a license changeThat's not how I read it, but interesting case. I think the license (that you now want to change) is granted to everyone who _obtained_ the code, contribution or no. If I'm not mistaken, when you distribute version 1.0 with GPL2, put it on sr.ht and I clone it, I don't think you're allowed to change the license of my clone after the fact?
(DIR) Post #9vPCldPmkbWs7AhbhQ by rune@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2020-05-25T12:52:56Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@mplammers I can grant you a new license for the code that I created, yes, but the old license will be valid in a sense dual licensing any code created until that point.But what typically happens after you relicense is that everyone still follows your master, which means the dual licensed parts become less useful as you start introducing new code that isn't dual licensed.Anyone can still take the old code under the old license, but if your software is under development it becomes "legacy"
(DIR) Post #9vPDAOEsJNs8HqP4Iy by mplammers@fosstodon.org
2020-05-25T12:57:33Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@rune Thanks. Poses some another question. Suppose before the license change it says all future forks should obey such and such, would a relicense void that?
(DIR) Post #9vPDCEmqQQmVYDAo52 by mplammers@fosstodon.org
2020-05-25T12:57:54Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@rune Thanks. Poses another question yet. Suppose before the license change it says all future forks should obey such and such, would a relicense void that?
(DIR) Post #9vPDhSnqMbuxzwWwQC by rune@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2020-05-25T13:03:21Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@mplammers Provided that it's the owner making the change it should be viewed more as a new separate work that was never affected by the old license.Some licenses allow sublicensing, which allows a non-owner to apply further licensing requirements but doesn't allow the non-owner to override the original license.It's kinda weird to imagine visually because the code is obviously the same, but in a legal sense they're separate entities, without a common history, when an owner re-licenses.
(DIR) Post #9vPDpntjogpDjwGRt2 by mplammers@fosstodon.org
2020-05-25T13:05:03Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@rune So if you can get to the owner to do it, you can basically remove the license from any software?
(DIR) Post #9vPDwKEcVBZvlh8pWa by mplammers@fosstodon.org
2020-05-25T13:06:13Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@rune So if you can get to the owner to do it, you can basically remove the license from any software you want to use for less restrictive purposes?
(DIR) Post #9vPEEx3usiIVOy15hA by rune@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2020-05-25T13:09:05Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@mplammers Yeah, some free software projects sell exclusive licenses to companies that won't use for example the GPL.The relicense in this purpose is only viable for that one party, but it allows them to make closed source changes to the code.
(DIR) Post #9vPENYVJYbudqHvzto by mplammers@fosstodon.org
2020-05-25T13:11:09Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@rune Very informative. Much appreciated.
(DIR) Post #9vWJbxPFcz910TVKs4 by nateberkopec@mastodon.social
2020-05-28T23:11:02Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@sir Oppose, because it excludes new licenses which may not fit definitions approved by those three entities. License experimentation is a good thing. Otherwise, we're letting 3 orgs control and dictate our rights as creators.
(DIR) Post #9vWJjVoy4ZnDll8Tvk by sir@cmpwn.com
2020-05-28T23:11:41Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@nateberkopec sr.ht is not the only platform, and so far these definitions have been pretty on-point
(DIR) Post #9vWJxHfxSg19x7ULS4 by icedquinn@blob.cat
2020-05-28T23:16:37.447567Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@sir @nateberkopec so you're saying i should get ready to airlift my code off your platform? okay. :blobcatshrug:
(DIR) Post #9vWKJD0VV2wtqOYReq by sir@cmpwn.com
2020-05-28T23:19:15Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@icedquinn @nateberkopec what code do you have there now which would be impacted by such a policy
(DIR) Post #9vWKehl0MpatIKYO3s by icedquinn@blob.cat
2020-05-28T23:24:28.128936Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@sir @nateberkopec If I wanted to be told I have to follow whatever some third party collection of idiots prints up, why would I have left big tech? They do the same thing now (do whatever XX group we select says is "real," or get banned for wrongthink.)You are now Twitter.:blobcatangery:
(DIR) Post #9vWKnxaur0aJ1GFR1k by sir@cmpwn.com
2020-05-28T23:24:54Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@icedquinn @nateberkopec oh come on, just answer the question in good faith
(DIR) Post #9vjNAFW3cHKQb9jJVg by tomas@fikaverse.club
2020-06-04T06:21:47Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@sirYou'd better watch out for keeping a whitelist of licenses, the maintenance can get a bit messy. Just ask the Gentoo devs https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/License_groups/MISC-FREEThey have been developing a package manager Portage that allows you to mask packages by their license. It's still not perfect. https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Handbook:Parts/Working/Portage#LicensesWouldn't this be a problem when certain users want to host their pre-existing code on SourceHut under the same license they've always used? Just a heads up!