Mastodawn

@[email protected]

This is both wise and utopic at once! 🙂

And a huge difference between contracts (signed by both parties) and licenses (granted from one, to many).

As for contracts, even if the parties agree on something, they sign a contract exactly because they can't trust each other future self.

And don't get me wrong, I don't use #GNU licenses on new project since I saw #GitHub #CopyALot output #QuakeIII #GPLv3 code with a wrong attribution and a #MIT like licenses. Now by default I use the Hacking License that is much simpler of a #copyleft.

Yet I still don't see much distance between what you wrote and FSF canon.

@[email protected]

OKD

🚴 📷22h ago

I knew the AGPL as a license that prohibits "storming off and making it a commercial offering".

The license that Redis and Elasticsearch should have used instead of fucking around with custom licenses when Amazon took their stuff, made paid offerings out of it and gave nothing back to them.

OnlyOffice's AGPL is limited by a phrase saying:

- You have to use the OnlyOffice logo if you fork it

...and another phrase that says

- You have no rights to use the OnlyOffice logo.

Apparently the AGPL inventor and the FSF side with Nextcloud on this.

OnlyOffice's AGPL isn't really opensource if it enforces crap like that.

https://www.heise.de/en/news/Euro-Office-OnlyOffice-accuses-of-license-violations-11241334.html

#foss #opensource #notalawyer #nextcloud #onlyoffice #eurooffice #agpl #copyleft

‘Euro-Office’: OnlyOffice accuses of license violations

Ionos and Nextcloud are working on ‘Euro-Office’ and have forked OnlyOffice for it. The project sees this as a license violation.

heise online

Show thread

Giacomo Tesio 23h ago

Well, putting the #HackingLicense among "ethical source" is not much fair to be honest.

Obviously, it's a #copyleft far from the #MIT and #BSD tradition.

BUT, it was designed (in 2021) to address the stealing from #FreeSoftware's developers that now runs rampant.

Now, to be honest, I'd really like if the Hacking License could be a free software license (without being an open source one) and still protect the commons shared with it. But if I have to choice between the future and the (noble) past of free software, I can accept to be blamed as "proprietary" or "non-free" or whatever... but still pursue the creation of protected commons.

If you don't know the work of #ElinorOstrom on the topic, I strongly suggest you both to read this paper that deeply informed the Hacking License.

Not to convince you to use such license or any covered work, but because I still think this is an important discussion developers should have. IMHO, it's our responsibility towards the next generation.

CC: @[email protected] @[email protected]

No right to relicense this project · Issue #327 · chardet/chardet

Hi, I'm Mark Pilgrim. You may remember me from such classics as "Dive Into Python" and "Universal Character Encoding Detector." I am the original author of chardet. First off, I would like to thank...

GitHub

Show thread

Giacomo Tesio 1d ago

@[email protected]

In this case, the consequence is intended.

The #HackingLicense is not an #opensource license, nor it's intended to be one.

I don't care about #OSI #gatekeepers.

However that particular requirement (that's by far not the most heretic 😉) should be read in the context of the whole license/contract that is basically a dependency inversion applyied to #copyleft: the goal is to protect a common good from appropiation; the method is requiring (and providing) conditioned copyright assignments to the users, so that any derivative or dependent work can be used under the same license.

To sue anybody for using a work under the terms of the Hacking License, a company should first prove to the Judge exclusive ownership of the #copyright over the work. But if they used anything under the Hacking License (thus accepting its terms) they can not.

And since #hackers love recursion, the license itself (that must be distributed with any derivative and dependent work) is under the Hacking License... 😇

@[email protected]

Show thread

🫧 socialcoding..2d ago

@houba yes, totally. The license is but a small tool in the toolbox. Some actors are repelled by #copyleft, but still we have this open kitchen then, where they learn all the recipes and let #FOSS folks explore the market for them on the cheap.

In a separate branch I mentioned the concept of "commons based" as a way forward, where the #SocialWeb and #PersonalSocialNetworking form the collaboration environments for cocreation..

https://social.coop/@smallcircles/116318450093978488

The chaotic commons is big. How do we foster chaordic organization, so that FOSS projects and initiatives are encouraged to pay attention beyond their direct scope, to dedicate collectively to the health of the ecosystem and key enabling technologies such as #ActivityPub that they rely upon?

Here #HedonicPeerProduction comes in, which can be supported on the #SocialNetwork itself. Different than top-down enforced #community #governance, which only works at small scales, self-interest is basis for participation.

https://coding.social/blog/reimagine-social/

Show thread

Johannes Brakensiek 2d ago

Commonly allowing code to be stolen and used by the powerful is not progress, it is technical feudalism.
#LLM #copyleft

Minotaurs at Work 2d ago

Stop doomscrolling and getting riled up and do something! What #Copyleft art or #LibreSoftware have you been making this month? 🐂🔧

Bradley M. Kühn 5d ago

Folks asked me about #chardet #LGPL situation. @corbet (on @lwn) published https://lwn.net/Articles/1061534/ it; everyone should read that.

Afterwards, take a 👀 at my comment on chardet's issue tracker:
https://github.com/chardet/chardet/issues/355#issuecomment-4145369025

TL;DR: I'm leading an effort at @conservancy to analyze this situation. The results will be published. It will take a long time — for good reason. Meanwhile, anyone using chardet commercially should call their lawyer.

#LGPLv2.1 #copyleft #SFC #SoftwareFreedom #LLM #AI #copyright

The relicensing of chardet

Chardet is a Python module that attempts to determine which character set was used to encode a [...]

LWN.net

Sam Knight 6d ago

Good news today! Copyright liability reduced for ISPs, increasing user privacy as ISPs need not police user internet activity for copyright purposes. The courts agreed that it's not worth sacrificing everything for the sake of policing copyright. Read EFF's press here : https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2026/03/supreme-court-agrees-eff-isps-dont-have-be-copyright-enforcers #news #goodnews #privacy #copyright #copyleft #eff

Supreme Court Agrees With EFF: ISPs Don't Have To Be Copyright Enforcers

If your ISP can be liable for huge amounts of money for not terminating your access to the internet because of accusations that you—or someone in your household or college network—has committed copyright infringement, that is dangerous. We live in a world where high speed internet access is a...

Electronic Frontier Foundation

2. Free Software was conceived in opposition to copyright but uses its legal framework. FSF has probably correctly assessed that opposing the is futile so they used it in an aikido move to use it against itself.Tools as malus might bring us towards that initial goal of #copyleft where the #copyright looses it potency. I'll have to think that through more thoroughly but the AI industry is already violating copyright big time. Maybe we get rid of it (but for the wrong reason).