Post AwxwecSCbAgZGqg35E by dos@social.librem.one
(DIR) More posts by dos@social.librem.one
(DIR) Post #Awxt8gWxbdtimkz3Z2 by cwebber@social.coop
2025-08-08T16:09:53Z
2 likes, 1 repeats
The Any FOSS License LicenseThis software is available under the terms of any license that currently appears on the list of approved open source licenses published by the Open Source Initiative or the list of approved free software licenses published by the Free Software Foundation.
(DIR) Post #AwxwIaeMcmlDIzrTOK by log@mastodon.sdf.org
2025-08-08T16:42:14Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@cwebber Why did my alarm for potential circular reference go off? Better add "any other license that currently appears" and "except this license" in there somewhere. Some of us would be puckish enough to add an all-license metalicense to one of the incorporated-by-reference lists.
(DIR) Post #AwxwIbhaiGw6ZINZ3o by cwebber@social.coop
2025-08-08T16:42:54Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@log I'm not sure a cycle would be harmful here but it's fun to think about it being one
(DIR) Post #AwxwIciKwz7vhtjfrU by log@mastodon.sdf.org
2025-08-08T16:43:57Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@cwebber I wouldn't want to trap a lawyer in an infinite loop while they're acceuing billable hours.
(DIR) Post #AwxwOjBpmpK5WqRZJo by dpk@chaos.social
2025-08-08T16:13:36Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@cwebber Great idea until Stallman dies and the FSF gets taken over by the Crown Prince of Korea, who thinks the Business Source Licence is great and they should approve it
(DIR) Post #AwxwOkBA6oNab38XuS by dos@social.librem.one
2025-08-08T16:16:54Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@dpk @cwebber There's no need for any takeover, there are licenses on these lists that let you freely relicense to anything you want already.
(DIR) Post #AwxwOkwfGCNQyNMTx2 by cwebber@social.coop
2025-08-08T16:19:52Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@dos @dpk well the joke is that it's as permissive/lax of a license as the most permissive/lax license in effect, but most lax licenses aren't lax because they can be relicensed, they still ordinarily operate under the terms of the original license, unless there's a specific clause for relicensingBut GPLv3 "or later" has the challenge where you have to trust the FSF, and that does have that challenge (and I did mean to evoke thoughts about that)License upgrade stewardship is a tough problem
(DIR) Post #AwxwOsj8KOJ56j5myG by cwebber@social.coop
2025-08-08T16:24:05Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@dos @dpk However, there's another joke in here about the *mutability* of this license choice: what happens if a license is *removed* from the list? By saying "currently" as opposed to "which appeared at any time", it's creating a challenge: it's not an append-only set, it could end up in strange places if something got removed
(DIR) Post #AwxwPbw8EuRVK4WIym by cwebber@social.coop
2025-08-08T16:11:44Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
I am not suggesting you use this "license", I am potentially making a point, or potentially making no point at all
(DIR) Post #AwxwPdCTXd6tF3As5o by aeva@mastodon.gamedev.place
2025-08-08T16:23:51Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@cwebber as a FOSS purist, personally I prefer The Every FOSS License License https://mastodon.gamedev.place/@aeva/113766050886883162
(DIR) Post #AwxwPlRet40aoSL6rw by aeva@mastodon.gamedev.place
2025-08-08T16:28:17Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@cwebber it has the most Freedoms by simply being the set of all Freedoms
(DIR) Post #AwxwWWnRkTOpPMkvVA by lanodan@queer.hacktivis.me
2025-08-08T16:48:14.982517Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@aeva @cwebber Oh wow, now that is chaotic.Imagine trying to figure out how CDDL, GPLv1, GPLv2, GPLv3, OpenWatcom, … go together.
(DIR) Post #AwxwecSCbAgZGqg35E by dos@social.librem.one
2025-08-08T16:45:19Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@cwebber @dpk Courts operate not just on the license's letter, but also its spirit, so taking over FSF to publish a permissive GPLv4 wouldn't necessarily be as effective as it may seem at first glance - even if it would still cause plenty of chaos. In contrast, the spirit of this joke license is pretty much "an overly complex way to say it's MIT-0/0BSD" - that is, unless a court decides otherwise, judging from the whole context around a particular case and particular people involved ;)
(DIR) Post #AwxwedU0lvj8SkX0Xg by cwebber@social.coop
2025-08-08T16:46:06Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@dos @dpk Just wait till you find out about how Wikipedia relicensed from the GFDL to CC BY-SA
(DIR) Post #AwxweeE60aaelg5oNE by cwebber@social.coop
2025-08-08T16:49:02Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@dos @dpk And if you don't know, here's from memory what happened:Wikipedia was licensed under the GFDL, and that was before CC BY-SA was available as the world's most popular copyleft license for cultural works. How to relicense with so many contributors?So... Creative Commons, Wikimedia, and the Free Software Foundation collaborated on adding a new version of the GFDL that allowed for relicensing to CC BY-SA if it were done within a short time window to allow Wikipedia to do it
(DIR) Post #Awxwy7gWhrVhdNg3lI by lanodan@queer.hacktivis.me
2025-08-08T16:53:13.551376Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@cwebber @dos @dpk Seems to be true, at least looking at a diff of GFDL-1.2 and GFDL-1.3.Also funny to read "Massive Multiauthor Collaboration Site" (or "MMC Site"), reminds me of MMORPG.
(DIR) Post #Awxx2C3yN200N4aLIG by cwebber@social.coop
2025-08-08T16:51:05Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@dos @dpk Source: from memory.But a fun fact about me: before I worked on decentralized network tech stuff (and partly during it), I used to work on the tech team (at one point tech lead) at Creative Commons, and went deep in the weeds on many FOSS / free cultural licensing thingsI have much too cursed knowledge about these things because of it
(DIR) Post #AwzpSGsUgGxpW43lOC by bkuhn@fedi.copyleft.org
2025-08-09T02:18:25Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@cwebberAs someone who was present at the drafting of the GFDL, and someone who thinks CC-BY-SA is not actually a #copyleft license, I think Wikipedia picked the correct evil of two lessers. GFDL was a peace treaty between RMS & Tim O'Reilly written in the form of a license.CC-BY-SA is copyleft designed by libertarians.True copyleft must allow reproducibility from first principles. CC-BY-SA doesn't. Cc: @dos @dpk
(DIR) Post #AwzpSIIlO5ZTvpMFyS by cwebber@social.coop
2025-08-09T14:37:24Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@bkuhn @dos @dpk I think copyleft with source-requirement is good, though I'm not convinced it's viable for all places where CC BY-SA is useful for. For example, distributing raw film footage and editing files for some videos isn't really necessary and may be an unnecessary burden if you think about much of the video content out there today, so having a weaker version of "copyleft" is sensible to me. I would be fine with a different term for it though.
(DIR) Post #Ax00LT3w4zmgm5N07s by richardfontana@mastodon.social
2025-08-09T16:30:29Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@cwebber Cf.: https://spdx.org/licenses/any-OSI.html
(DIR) Post #Ax01Cz0S2mUjC7G4Lg by bkuhn@fedi.copyleft.org
2025-08-09T15:02:15Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
In the case of #Wikipedia, though, printed copies should always offer &/or be accompanied with electronic copies. Wikipedia should really be under copyleft and it's not.After all, paper printout is but a rudimentary form of DRM.I'm not saying CC-BY-SA is useless and shouldn't exist, I'm saying there **is no** #copyleft in the CC license group. CC even used to encourage photographers license scaled versions CC-BY-SA & keep high quality images proprietary.Cc: @cwebber @wikipedia @dos @dpk
(DIR) Post #Ax01CzxIVzZA8cn44W by lanodan@queer.hacktivis.me
2025-08-09T16:50:09.075903Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@bkuhn @cwebber @wikipedia @dos @dpk > CC even used to encourage photographers license scaled versions CC-BY-SA & keep high quality images proprietary.Given they're the authors, aren't they not bound by their own licensing though?But I guess CC-BY-SA allows for a third-party to scale down an image and not have to also make the source (I wonder if it could even be defined for photos) available with it, unlike copyleft licenses.
(DIR) Post #Ax0ILgJ0dlF31RfjBQ by bkuhn@fedi.copyleft.org
2025-08-09T20:01:44Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
Remember, @lanodan, that an exclusive rights holder (e.g., a copyright holder) always has the permission to issue any material under any license (or many different licenses) or not.This is what allows “proprietary relicensing” to happen at all.That sad, the other part of your analysis **is** correct: CC-BY-SA permits me to take a high-res image you give me, modify it, reduce it to low res, and refuse to share the modified high-res image with anyone.Cc: @dpk @cwebber @dos