Post B1pxt4cipBkoNmxFb6 by divVerent@misskey.de
(DIR) More posts by divVerent@misskey.de
(DIR) Post #B1prTWDJ1W0shJUuyu by icedquinn@blob.cat
2026-01-01T08:34:34.593499Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
> MIT to prevent future innovationngl i'd use gpl or something, even still.i'd be more likely to just have the gpl redrafted to read less like shit (more like the OSL probably) than give in to the giving VCs free labor shit
(DIR) Post #B1psYewa5lDVAygqNk by divVerent@misskey.de
2026-01-01T08:41:05.693Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@icedquinn@blob.cat VCs can use GPL stuff too - but it is limited and carries compliance costs, and thus usually more expensive than MIT.So still a nice forcing function.
(DIR) Post #B1psYfXRsghv1JwHqa by icedquinn@blob.cat
2026-01-01T08:46:40.317486Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@divVerent well if they're paying to make open source things... :blobcatdunno: i see less good reasons not to mandate most things be open source over time. though i suspect there is a greater problem of being able to actually use firmware code in a meaningful way.some build chains are shit and just having the code to a keyboard firmware might not help too much. or if its flashed to ROM. but nowadays everything is on RW flash memory and a lot of common microcontrollers have open dev kits, so i don't see any legitimate business interest in not letting you hack at your keeb (warrany voiding notwithstanding.)
(DIR) Post #B1pxt4cipBkoNmxFb6 by divVerent@misskey.de
2026-01-01T09:44:48.002Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@icedquinn@blob.cat GPL does not require open sourcing changes if you do not distribute the software.AGPL goes further but has massive usability issues even for end users who do not care. IMHO if AGPL software that provides a network service just had a facility to provide its own source, that would already help a lot so one does not have to take care of that separately. Maybe for HTTP stuff that should even be a standardized URL like https://service/source.agpl?
(DIR) Post #B1pxt5qwFoiiCAc7Oa by icedquinn@blob.cat
2026-01-01T09:46:24.529009Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@divVerent well for hardware products they are distributing the software with the machine.i think its ridiculous that shit like fans and air conditioners need "apps" to control and the protocols aren't open.
(DIR) Post #B1sCxArHTNXUVT67Cy by Suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com
2026-01-02T11:44:41.155740Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@divVerent @icedquinn No GNU license requires "open sourcing" anything - as those are free software licenses.If the host does not modify the software they run on their server, the AGPLv3 doesn't require anything.It's only if the host modified the AGPLv3-variant software that such modified source code needs to be provided to all of those the software does the computation of - which really isn't hard to do.
(DIR) Post #B1sQU5R7x0pieRtA9o by divVerent@misskey.de
2026-01-02T13:52:41.930Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com @icedquinn@blob.cat My point is, if it is open source, it will be modified, sooner or later. And be it to temporarily work around a minor bug. That's what open source is all about after all (not all though, sure).So if I e.g. use an AGPL'd web forum, and host that on my server, all is fine. The moment I go in there and edit one line, I suddenly have to provide source.So I better provide source right from the get-go.The problem is that even right now many users of AGPL'd software forget that part, as they do not plan on modifying it initially and in that case the AGPL doesn't require it.Which is why, if I ever license anything under the AGPL or a similar license, I'll make it so the software hosts its own source code automatically, packaged e.g. as part of the build process, or serving from its running directory if there's nothing to compile. Which elegantly solves the problem for everyone involved.I already did a similar thing before when I licensed something under MIT and/or BSD licenses. The main catch there is that you can accidentally include the library in something and forget to include the license file or the credits, as you may believe it is "GPL compatible" and thus your own GPL stuff is sufficient. It is not. My solution to that is to provide one global symbol in the library that contains the license notice. So if by nothing else, you can always find it with strings on the binary, which fulfills the license requirements and thus I can rest assured nobody will ever violate my license terms by accident.If someone then actively removes it and doesn't include the license file, there's clear intent.
(DIR) Post #B1sQU6soZYZh8bqmx6 by Suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com
2026-01-02T14:16:15.536488Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@divVerent @icedquinn >The moment I go in there and edit one line, I suddenly have to provide source.An edit as trivial as a single line is not creative enough to require copyright permission and the AGPLv3 specifically points out; "This License acknowledges your rights of fair use or other equivalent, as provided by copyright law.".But if you start making non-trivial changes, clearly you can also do the trivial act of providing the source code can't you?>I'll make it so the software hosts its own source code automatically, packaged e.g. as part of the build process, or serving from its running directory if there's nothing to compile. Which elegantly solves the problem for everyone involved.Yes, a good idea, even though such is not necessary.
(DIR) Post #B1t4q7eEPETC2z52TA by divVerent@misskey.de
2026-01-02T15:43:45.104Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com @icedquinn@blob.cat Pretty sure editing one line of source code is not fair use.After all, supposedly just inverting the sense of one conditional jump - a one byte change - is also against copyright.Fair use is not using an existing work with one tiny change. Fair use is making a new work with a tiny bit of another.As such, the moment you change one byte, the full force of the AGPL kicks in, as nothing else gives you the right to use the modified software.Exceptions apply, such as the interoperability restriction in copyright law in Germany which allows you to decompile or even modify software to gain interoperability with another system. This however usually does not cover fixing bugs, unless those bugs hamper interoperability.
(DIR) Post #B1t4q89mVvhtcpqEe8 by icedquinn@blob.cat
2026-01-02T21:48:23.849255Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@divVerent @Suiseiseki there is a size of a change before its considered legally significant. if i recall the FSF generally notes this to be around 10 lines of code, as thats roughly when they require the copyright assignment.while i would like capitalism overall to die i generally look somewhere adjacent to the MPL. i want people returning things they take from the commons back to the commons. i don't really care about minor plugins to bridge their db backends with tryton or whatever. gpl3 and agpl sort of don't either its just a consequence of this stupid "i'm not touching you" game.donnela meadows had another name thats like "rules avoidance" where the market is all collectively flying as close to ignoring a law as possible.