Open Source Software Community - it's about ethics in Code of Conducts

Markass the Worst said:
Big Tech lawyers are more worried of GPL software "infecting" their codebase than pedophiles being on their platforms. If the GPL was truly toothless why would they be so scared?
Click to expand...
Yeah there's a lot more risk from GPL than someone using your platform to share illegal content. GPL could easily blow up your entire company. There is a big gap between how FSF characterizes GPL and how the technical language reads. No one has any idea if a court would prioritize the plain text of the license or the FSF's editorializing, or if any certain plugin architecture creates a combined work or not. The judges that would be interpreting this are not experts and nobody wants to be the test case trying to explain what dynamically linked libraries are to a 70 year old ex-prosecutor in a Texas federal courtroom.
 
Markass the Worst said:
Big Tech lawyers are more worried of GPL software "infecting" their codebase than pedophiles being on their platforms. If the GPL was truly toothless why would they be so scared?
Click to expand...
Because Big Tech lawyers are all well-known faggots deathly afraid of being infected with GPL-AIDS?

In all seriousness, nobody gives a shit about the GPL. Big Tech will happily develop shit under the GPL and use any number of perfectly license-conforming measures to fuck you over because, well, fuck you, goy. There's a reason people write all this crap that gets taken by Big Tech without so much as a dime going back to the authors: because the authors are retarded, and corporations are run by jews.

I think a good alternative to the GPL would be the Fascist Software License, or what I like to call GPL+HEILHITLER. You are required to respect the terms of the GNU General Public License v2 (because Tivo did no wrong, lol), but if you make use of the licensed software then you must put up with the very prominent badges that denounce global jewry and praise the Führer.... or you can pay jewgeld to legally remove them.

All muh coders nazis, nigga HEIL HITLER.
 
dame dudi jench said:
Yeah there's a lot more risk from GPL than someone using your platform to share illegal content. GPL could easily blow up your entire company. There is a big gap between how FSF characterizes GPL and how the technical language reads. No one has any idea if a court would prioritize the plain text of the license or the FSF's editorializing, or if any certain plugin architecture creates a combined work or not. The judges that would be interpreting this are not experts and nobody wants to be the test case trying to explain what dynamically linked libraries are to a 70 year old ex-prosecutor in a Texas federal courtroom.
Click to expand...
There's only so much perceived risk because the standard industry practice is to stick a big spiky dildo up the end-users' assholes whenever they use your proprietary software and to arbitrarily remotely disable the software whenever you feel like it without giving any compensation or explanation. GPL bros need to improve their marketing skills but too many of them have been a bit too busy going for the diversity angle, which is a black hole of effectiveness.
 
Cherenkovblue said:
(because Tivo did no wrong, lol)
Click to expand...
im giving louis rossman your name, phone number, and home address
Unintelligence Score said:
GPL bros need to improve their marketing skills but too many of them have been a bit too busy going for the diversity angle, which is a black hole of effectiveness.
Click to expand...
i admire the fsf for having mainly the same goal after 40 years: do whatever the fuck you want with software on your computer
 
Markass the Worst said:
If the GPL was truly toothless why would they be so scared?
Click to expand...
Because it will not be the direct developer suing, but a direct competitor on the behalf of developer(s) suing to fuck with them.
GPL is a threat due to being a liability first and foremost, giving any chances to litigious trolling is a bad idea.

See CoKinetic Systems Corporation v. Panasonic Avionics Corporation for example, where GPLv2 was used as a wedge to attempt to force panasonic to disclose their linux-based OS's source code. The suit afaict reached a private settlement.
 
Apparently, Framework is shutting down their Discord server in favor of the forums.
1763491586vv7mK_84HIelJg.webp
 

I wish it was physically possible to hate these fang companies more. I think they deserve all the hate I have for them, and 2 times over.

Anyway. Nothing surprising here. Meta breaks the law all the time, they don't care, the punishment is for less than they made, so they just consider it the cost of doing business. All these companies are unironically evil. And they are they only thing I have to stop myself from fedposting about.
 
Cherenkovblue said:
GPL+HEILHITLER. You are required to respect the terms of the GNU General Public License v2 (because Tivo did no wrong, lol), but if you make use of the licensed software then you must put up with the very prominent badges that denounce global jewry and praise the Führer.... or you can pay jewgeld to legally remove them.
Click to expand...
The plusnigger liscence already exists
 
Max Weber said:
Apparently, Framework is shutting down their Discord server in favor of the forums.
Click to expand...
God bless them.

Discord is a dogshit platform, filled with losers and any decent thing that incidentally gets shared there is inaccessible to the broader internet. Even if you are in the server, it just gets lost in the chat history. Meanwhile there are decades old forum posts that get continually referenced.
 
dame dudi jench said:
Yeah there's a lot more risk from GPL than someone using your platform to share illegal content. GPL could easily blow up your entire company. There is a big gap between how FSF characterizes GPL and how the technical language reads. No one has any idea if a court would prioritize the plain text of the license or the FSF's editorializing, or if any certain plugin architecture creates a combined work or not. The judges that would be interpreting this are not experts and nobody wants to be the test case trying to explain what dynamically linked libraries are to a 70 year old ex-prosecutor in a Texas federal courtroom.
Click to expand...

Unintelligence Score said:
There's only so much perceived risk because the standard industry practice is to stick a big spiky dildo up the end-users' assholes whenever they use your proprietary software and to arbitrarily remotely disable the software whenever you feel like it without giving any compensation or explanation. GPL bros need to improve their marketing skills but too many of them have been a bit too busy going for the diversity angle, which is a black hole of effectiveness.
Click to expand...

sorry but i don't see the connection. what you're describing is a really evil anti-consumer practice of companies disabling live-service software when they could easily release a patch when they shut down live service similars. or arbitrarily disabling a product after a certain amount of years to force an upgrade. that practice should be regulated out of existence and i'd expect the EU will eventually ban it under one of their existing digital regulations given how much traction stop killing games is getting. but that has nothing to do with the merits of GPL vs. say, MIT or Apache 2.0, and i think that is the crux of the issue - stallman has a lot of valid concerns about digital right to repair, tinker, destructive DRM and interoperability, but you have to address those via regulatory action, not his abortion of a license. GPL makes it impossible to sell software that incorporates any GPL'd library. once you include one library, that GPLs your entire project. that means you have to give away your source code to anyone who buys your product, and then that customer has the right to recompile it and give away your software for free. so if a company were to commercialize GPL software, they will do it as a SaaS product and sidestep all of GPL. you can probably sidestep even AGPL by distributing only a local client and have all the secret sauce be a back-end structured and accessed in a compliant way. If the concern is with free riders taking advantage of other people's projects, LGPL is the appropriate scope for addressing that - it lets people commercialize LGPL libraries, but you must distribute the source code of what you changed in the library with your software, which in practice means a github fork.

so GPL is just stallman pouting in his tree fort and saying the software is free for anyone but for-profit companies. that isn't "free" software - actual freedom is the freedom to do whatever you want with it, like most OSLs allow. and GPL doesn't stop companies from doing evil things with free software. he's just lashing out like a sulky teenager, like so many neurotic leftists of his generation. there is no reason to prohibit commercialization of free software. there is no limit on how many times you can copy code, so GPL software doesn't somehow become less free when it is copied into a commercial product. when stuff is done under genuinely free permissive OSLs, private industry contributes a lot to open source projects, creating more, better, and more secure free software for everyone to enjoy. so GPL is counterproductive in actually creating a free software ecosystem. it seems purely driven by his autism and resentment he's always been too weird to have a real job.
 
Last edited:
dame dudi jench said:
once you include one library, that GPLs your entire project. that means you have to give away your source code to anyone who buys your product, and then that customer has the right to recompile it and give away your software for free. so if a company were to commercialize GPL software, they will do it as a SaaS product and sidestep all of GPL. you can probably sidestep even AGPL by distributing only a local client and have all the secret sauce be a back-end structured and accessed in a compliant way.
Click to expand...
That's gotta be a record.
 
dame dudi jench said:
what you're describing is a really evil anti-consumer practice of companies disabling live-service software when they could easily patch out the requirement so ppl can run it stand-alone.
Click to expand...
this evil practice, and many others like it, are caused by things being proprietary. the strongest possible fix (with almost 0 loopholes) is to not have that
dame dudi jench said:
stallman has a lot of valid concerns about digital right to repair, tinker and interoperability, but you have to address those via regulatory action, not his abortion of a license
Click to expand...
regulatory action that has not happened yet (we've been waiting for 40 years btw) and probably won't happen for at least another 60 (this is even optimistic)
the gpl might have some problems but by god is it better than the alternative (doing absolutely nothing)
dame dudi jench said:
GPL makes it impossible to sell software that incorporates any GPL'd library
Click to expand...
correct; if proprietary developers want to use a nice gpl-licensed library, they have to release their software under a gpl-compatible license
as somebody who has seen things like the internet, dmca bullshit, this fucking site, and the stupid bullshit that happens if you accidentally play 4 seconds of the wrong song on twitch or whatever, i am of the firm belief that selling or having any sort of control in general over information is kind of retarded
dame dudi jench said:
there is no limit on how many times you can copy code, so GPL software doesn't somehow become less free when it is copied into a commercial product.
Click to expand...
it becomes less free for the user, since it is now part of a commercial product
stallman's positions are way easier to understand if you consider what happens to the rights of the user for any given situation.
dame dudi jench said:
when stuff is done under genuinely free permissive OSLs, private industry contributes a lot to open source projects, creating more, better, and more secure free software for everyone to enjoy.
Click to expand...
yeah like back in this thread where the libxml2 ragequit because he had been working his ass off for all these private industries and they have all contributed about $0 combined between financial and development support
the situation is admittedly not that much better under stallman's framework, but at least you aren't doing it for free for the fagman big tech companies, you're doing it so none of your peers ever have to reinvent a wheel
dame dudi jench said:
so GPL is counterproductive in actually creating a free software ecosystem.
Click to expand...
the gpl? counterproductive? simply look at android and you will see your "free software ecosystem"

Jotch said:
That's gotta be a record.
Click to expand...
i thought i was bad
 
Creative Username said:
im giving louis rossman your name, phone number, and home address
Click to expand...
Please do. I think that nigger stole my Alice in Chains CDs.
Creative Username said:
i admire the fsf for having mainly the same goal after 40 years: do whatever the fuck you want with software on your computer
Click to expand...
....except write software and give it away under any license other than the GPL, because actually it's about ethics in socialism.
Nol 2 said:
The plusnigger liscence already exists
Click to expand...
I'm aware, but GPL+NIGGER doesn't include clauses to pay to remove this badgeware. I'm open to the notion of additional badges of NIGGERJEWFAGGOT or, well, whatever. Also, I like the idea that such software wouldn't be able to be distributed in the EU without paying to remove the badgeware that goes with it... because god forbid those pantswetting nonces ever hear so much as a fart in anger aimed in their general direction.
 
dame dudi jench said:
when stuff is done under genuinely free permissive OSLs, private industry contributes a lot to open source projects, creating more, better, and more secure free software for everyone to enjoy.
Click to expand...

Creative Username said:
yeah like back in this thread where the libxml2 ragequit because he had been working his ass off for all these private industries and they have all contributed about $0 combined between financial and development support
the situation is admittedly not that much better under stallman's framework, but at least you aren't doing it for free for the fagman big tech companies, you're doing it so none of your peers ever have to reinvent a wheel
Click to expand...

that guy chose to maintain it for free for a decade. one altruist was willing to take all this on for free but nobody bothered to pitch in and help him avoid burnout. that sucks, but to me it proves that you need financial incentives to develop software at least some of the time. if he started charging people for updates he could keep going and the tech companies would eventually decide to pony up once the changes got material. but not sure why he is super relevant - big picture, big tech contributes a lot to open source and most of that is only possible with permissive licensing.

Creative Username said:
the gpl? counterproductive? simply look at android and you will see your "free software ecosystem"
Click to expand...
yeah not a great environment with android. telcos/smartphones are a natural oligopoly due to network effects and economies of scale, and phones entail proprietary drivers, but the reason graphene OS can even exist in is b/c android is open source. if you're a company, you need to make money, so google's alternative to using a permissive license wasn't going GPL, it would have been to make proprietary system that they would license out to developers and manufacturers, like java. if that happened nothing remotely like graphene could exist. or take RHEL - their business model relies on a really aggressive position on what GPL permits, but they have nurtured an ecosystem of expertise and development and provide the documentation and security support businesses need to deploy linux, and people in enterprise linux are a lot of the contributors to FOSS projects.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom