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

[prollyanotherlurker]

If I was publishing software, is there any reason I wouldn't want to just use gpl v3 + nigger

 

[analrapist]

If I was publishing software, is there any reason I wouldn't want to just use gpl v3 + nigger

In a great many countries, doing so would constitute "hate speech" and create potential criminal liability.

In the properly-civilized world? GPLv3+NIGGER is almost certainly adequate. Maybe AGPL if you wanna be really irritating about it.

 

[prollyanotherlurker]

In a great many countries, doing so would constitute "hate speech" and create potential criminal liability.

In the properly-civilized world? GPLv3+NIGGER is almost certainly adequate. Maybe AGPL if you wanna be really irritating about it.

Ok. Taking out the + nigger part.

Is there any good reason I wouldn't want to use it?

Spoiler

(And allowing corpo niggers to link against programs I make is not what I consider a good reason)

 

[Bahnhader]

There should be a software loicense that allows for code to be used by anyone except for profit, competing corporations, etc. Maybe Nvidia would finally open source their drivers because it can be implemented into Linux but AMD and Intel can't use it.

 

[prollyanotherlurker]

There should be a software loicense that allows for code to be used by anyone except for profit, competing corporations, etc. Maybe Nvidia would finally open source their drivers because it can be implemented into Linux but AMD and Intel can't use it.

They're called something like source available. They exist. You just have to look for them.

That one company got a bunch of shit for moving an open source project to one of those last year. I can't remember the name of the project.

Anyway, that wouldn't be open source if they did that.

 

[volatile puar]

There should be a software loicense that allows for code to be used by anyone except for profit, competing corporations, etc. Maybe Nvidia would finally open source their drivers because it can be implemented into Linux but AMD and Intel can't use it.

It's called a non-commercial clause. These sorts of limited use licenses don't get used much because free software people usually won't use or contribute to them. The most commonly used is Creative Commons Non-commercial, but that license isn't meant for software, so I'm not sure how wise it is to use it. I would personally recommend FUTO's Source First License 1.1, but I don't like that it doesn't define what constitutes commercial use, the courts may side against you if you choose to sue for what you deem to be commercial use https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/License:SourceFirstLicense-1.1

 

[emergenigger]

You know, I'll just point out that before the term "open source" was hijacked by pseudo-free-software advocates to push their commie pinko bullshit, it literally meant what those same clowns now call "source available" -- as in, "It's open source and available on net.sources". Plenty of projects were published with a license reading to the effect of "free for noncommercial use - inquire at BLAHBLAHBLAH for commercial licensing". If you truly think you have something worth protecting you could try doing something like that. If you've come up with something patent-worthy, you could go the MPEG-LA route of giving a license to anyone who wants to write software incorporating it but sticking a shiv in anyone who wants to embed it on a device (unless they pay royalties, of course). If neither of these cases applies to you then maybe consider your software isn't really all that important and just license it as BSD/MIT because it doesn't matter.

I'm convinced that you want to argue in good faith.

Even though I agree (double licensing is the way to go) there's a problem with Shared-source or Open source artistic licenses (the one you implicitly mentioned) that are not GPL.
Namely, if a company goes bankrupt you're absolutely SOL.
Unless you like getting raped by lawyers there isn't much you can do with the source when you have double licensing.


Exhibit A: Original Unix by Bell Labs. Even though its source was licensed to a multitude of companies (including but not limited IBM), patent trolls tried to rape everybody and their grandma for using any fucking Unix derivative by impersonating Bell Labs' corpse.
You might have heard of Santa Cruz Operation (SCO Group). That is them. The fact that they won (!) On

Exhibit B: A program I am currently using (CVC). Currently, there is no FOSS Verilog simulator on the market that supports SDF analysis. SDF is needed if you actually want to make sure your integrated circuit does not have timing bugs that normal Static Timing Analysis wouldn't discover. Because I am unwilling to sell my kidney for a Cadence license, I tried CVC, which is Open Source but licensed on an Artistic License, meaning that you won't be able to use it commercially.
The kicker is that the company behind is defunct and the State of Minnesota invalidated its license to operate for failing to pay licensing costs.
A lot of software like this is orphaned and lands in the Grey Zone, meaning that if I modify it and release my patches for it, I could get royally fucked.
The GPL allows you to just fork and use the software regardless.

Edit: read @Cherenkovblue 's reply, it is more informed than my post.

 

[Cherenkovblue]

Even though I agree (double licensing is the way to go) there's a problem with Shared-source or Open source artistic licenses (the one you implicitly mentioned) that are not GPL.
Namely, if a company goes bankrupt you're absolutely SOL.

1. There is absolutely nothing in the Artistic License that is even remotely like what I describe (i.e. "free for noncommercial use, contact us for a commercial license" or MPEG-LA-style patent licensing). What you've described is a modified form thereof used specifically for CVC (see below).
2. Bankruptcy is not a get out of jail free card for software licenses, and the GPL is not a panacea in bankruptcy either. Title 11, Section 365(n) provides remedies for cases where a software license may be regarded as an executory contract and is terminated by order of a bankruptcy judge -- namely that the licensee can just say FUCK YOU and keep using it under the prior license while continuing to pay royalties.

Unless you like getting raped by lawyers there isn't much you can do with the source when you have double licensing.

The GPL is not a magical incantation against lawfare. If someone wants to sue you into the stone age they will not be stopped by the GPL.

Exhibit A: Original Unix by Bell Labs. Even though its source was licensed to a multitude of companies (including but not limited IBM), patent trolls tried to rape everybody and their grandma for using any fucking Unix derivative by impersonating Bell Labs' corpse.
You might have heard of Santa Cruz Operation (SCO Group). That is them. The fact that they won (!) On

The GPL can't stop a third party from patent trolling you to death either.

Exhibit B: A program I am currently using (CVC). Currently, there is no FOSS Verilog simulator on the market that supports SDF analysis. SDF is needed if you actually want to make sure your integrated circuit does not have timing bugs that normal Static Timing Analysis wouldn't discover. Because I am unwilling to sell my kidney for a Cadence license, I tried CVC, which is Open Source but licensed on an Artistic License, meaning that you won't be able to use it commercially.

That is not the Artistic License. That is Tachyon's modified form of the Artistic License that adds restrictions on commercial use. This or this is the Artistic License.

The kicker is that the company behind is defunct and the State of Minnesota invalidated its license to operate for failing to pay licensing costs.
A lot of software like this is orphaned and lands in the Grey Zone, meaning that if I modify it and release my patches for it, I could get royally fucked.
The GPL allows you to just fork and use the software regardless.

The GPL can't save you if the dual licensor goes bankrupt or otherwise sells the underlying asset. For example, if the sole owner of the copyrights to a work decides to sell them to someone who wants to take the work proprietary... guess what? You have zero recourse. This has happened several times already and the FSF continues to assert to the contrary. In their view they want a bare license to nevertheless be treated like a contract when it's convenient, but that's not how they work. Likewise, a company going out of business without going through bankruptcy proceedings does not change that. This is why proper stewardship of such projects requires a non-profit that can act as the nominal owner of the underlying intellectual property rights so that sort of thing doesn't happen. It's not enough to slap the GPL (or indeed any other license) on your work: You have to assign it to a trust of some kind, preferably with a non-profit as a beneficiary thereof, to ensure the asset remains available under the desired terms indefinitely.

 

[I AM UNDOUBTEDLY FIZZED8%]

yeah. that's funny I think I saw @dec05eba on some youtube channel not that long ago talking to someone. I can't remember who. If not they were talking about gpu screenrecorder. I wish I could remember who I was watching. I never put 2 and 2 together on it though. I almost want to say I remember seeing the same pfp in what I watched, but just figured it was a coincidence someone here had it.

Spoiler

I halfway feel like I'm imaging it because i can't remember what channel it was lol. I'm positive some youtube video I watched recently was about your program at the very least though

edit: I knew I wasn't insane lol

tell brodie to read the thread. I'm sure he will love it here.

00:04:29 - 00:04:57 > Why the fuck is he making these fake looking soy chuckles here?

NO SERIOUSLY, at times, whenever dec05eba just explains problems he's having and how he'd fix them like a normal dev Brodie laughs as if there was a joke in there when there isn't or if the issues explained to him were THAT ABSURD after 2+ years of him pretending to not understand why people still use wayland on his fucking mastodon and BlueSky accounts. He acts like an actor playing as a student failing to hold in their laughter as a friend accidentally shows their chode in front of other classmates.

Literally the face of someone who would take a shit on any good git project that wouldn't talk back.

*SHITTING*

*ALMOOOST DOOONE*

*FINISHED*

 

[prollyanotherlurker]

00:04:29 - 00:04:57 > Why the fuck is he making these fake looking soy chuckles here?

NO SERIOUSLY, at times, whenever dec05eba just explains problems he's having and how he'd fix them like a normal dev Brodie laughs as if there was a joke in there when there isn't or if the issues explained to him were THAT ABSURD after 2+ years of him pretending to not understand why people still use wayland on his fucking mastodon and BlueSky accounts. He acts like an actor playing as a student failing to hold in their laughter as a friend accidentally shows their chode in front of other classmates.

Literally the face of someone who would take a shit on any good git project that wouldn't talk back.

*SHITTING*
View attachment 8571948
*ALMOOOST DOOONE*
View attachment 8571957
*FINISHED*
View attachment 8571961

Yeah brodie has some annoying ticks, for lack of a better word he does during interviews.

Also notice how while people talk to him about anything. He reflexively says "mhm, mhm, mhm", rather than sitting in silence, and just letting his guest speak. Or maybe nodding his head if he really needs to show he is actively listening for whatever reason. It's something that I can't help but notice every time I see him interview someone, and it bothers me lol. Nigger just sit there and listen. It's fine.

 

[emergenigger]

This is why proper stewardship of such projects requires a non-profit that can act as the nominal owner of the underlying intellectual property rights so that sort of thing doesn't happen. It's not enough to slap the GPL (or indeed any other license) on your work: You have to assign it to a trust of some kind, preferably with a non-profit as a beneficiary thereof, to ensure the asset remains available under the desired terms indefinitely

Okay, I take back what I said, thank you for correcting me.

I don't know why you were MATI'd, your post was deeply informational and properly researched.

Edit: holy shit you were right. Copyright needs to be fucking abolished, Jesus.
I guess it is slightly different in Polish law (some software patents can't fly here – namely patents on algorithms) but considering we're still under the Paris and Berne conventions that is still absolutely fucked. Lmao.

https://www.tafttechlaw.com/2023/03/what-if-your-software-provider-goes-bankrupt-navigating-section-365n-an-software-licensing-agreements/

Key Points in Drafting Software License Agreements:

License Should Be Explicitly Subject to 365(n): The software license agreement needs to include language that it is subject to Section 365(n) of the Bankruptcy Code. While not dispositive, explicit language makes the intent of the parties clear.

Source Code Escrow: Because licensees only retain rights that exist at the time of the bankruptcy, licensees need to make sure that the software license agreement includes the right to access source code and any associated support and maintenance rights to use that source code. Robust source code escrow agreements and carefully drafted escrow provisions are critical to retaining maximum flexibility and use of the software on a going forward basis – even if the software vendor goes bankrupt. Having continued access to the software, but no means to maintain or update it, does little good.

Separate Licensee Fees from Other Fees: License agreements often contain payment obligations for (among other things) support, professional services, software development, maintenance, and customizations that are not associated with the license grant. If these fees are bundled together, a licensee may be obligated to continue to pay fees for services not provided – just to continue to access and use the software. Delineating licensee fees from other fees minimizes this risk.

This is how Oracle made money off of Sun, right? Despicable.

 

[snotang]

The GPL can't save you if the dual licensor goes bankrupt or otherwise sells the underlying asset. For example, if the sole owner of the copyrights to a work decides to sell them to someone who wants to take the work proprietary... guess what? You have zero recourse. This has happened several times already and the FSF continues to assert to the contrary. In their view they want a bare license to nevertheless be treated like a contract when it's convenient, but that's not how they work. Likewise, a company going out of business without going through bankruptcy proceedings does not change that. This is why proper stewardship of such projects requires a non-profit that can act as the nominal owner of the underlying intellectual property rights so that sort of thing doesn't happen. It's not enough to slap the GPL (or indeed any other license) on your work: You have to assign it to a trust of some kind, preferably with a non-profit as a beneficiary thereof, to ensure the asset remains available under the desired terms indefinitely.

I don't understand what you're trying to say here. The purpose of the GPL is to ensure that software released under it remains free for all who use it. The only people it cannot impose this restriction on are the authors of the software in question, or the copyright holders in the case that there is a difference.

Are you saying that bankruptcy can somehow retroactively revoke a perpetual license? That if someone releases something under the GPL, but goes bankrupt, the already-distributed software can become nonfree somehow? That if I sell the right to use my software forever for $5, but I go bankrupt and glotang gets the ownership he can demand another $5 to use it forever, and if he goes bankrupt and brotang gets the ownership he can demand another $5 to use it forever, and so on?

If that's what you're saying, that sounds extremely legally sketchy, though I can't say judicial bullshit that creates infinite money glitches would be particularly surprising.

If that's not what you're saying, then what fault in the GPL are you identifying? Surely it's not just the fact that the copyright holder is not bound by its terms and can therefore make derivative works under different terms?

 

[prollyanotherlurker]

I don't understand what you're trying to say here.

Look take it easy on him. This is just a trama response. Most people don't realize he was the person in that story that got raped by the 2 linux greybeards. He can't help but violently thrash any time he sees gpl licensing being brought up. Have some compassion.

 

[Cherenkovblue]

I don't understand what you're trying to say here.

Yes, I can see that. I'll try to clear things up for you.

The purpose of the GPL is to ensure that software released under it remains free for all who use it. The only people it cannot impose this restriction on are the authors of the software in question, or the copyright holders in the case that there is a difference.

Correct. That is their intent. And yet...

Are you saying that bankruptcy can somehow retroactively revoke a perpetual license? That if someone releases something under the GPL, but goes bankrupt, the already-distributed software can become nonfree somehow? That if I sell the right to use my software forever for $5, but I go bankrupt and glotang gets the ownership he can demand another $5 to use it forever, and if he goes bankrupt and brotang gets the ownership he can demand another $5 to use it forever, and so on?

If such a perpetual license were viewed by a bankruptcy court as being an executory license, then yes, it may be set aside in bankruptcy proceedings. Moreover, though, even if it were not considered an executory license, and hence were subsequently purchased in bankruptcy by a third party, that third party could then turn around and revoke the existing license since, again, the GPL is described as a bare license, and bare licenses are revokable at will. Any confusion you may have surrounding this point stems from the FSF wanting the GPL to be characterized as a bare license instead of a contract in the SCO trial for strategic reasons, but not wanting it to be treated as one when it comes to revocation. In short: The FSF has been trying to legislate a contract-thats-not-a-contract license for decades which can and will explode the second it's put in front of a judge.

If that's what you're saying, that sounds extremely legally sketchy, though I can't say judicial bullshit that creates infinite money glitches would be particularly surprising.

Well, there are several caveats to this, such as remedies for executory licenses under 365(n) as noted earlier. Ultimately, though, the correct solution is to establish a trust with multiple beneficiaries (including a nonprofit) such that bankruptcy of a single entity cannot cause the license to enter a state in which it might be revoked. This is what I meant when I said that a license is not enough... you need proper stewardship.

If that's not what you're saying, then what fault in the GPL are you identifying? Surely it's not just the fact that the copyright holder is not bound by its terms and can therefore make derivative works under different terms?

Oh no, I actually support that sort of dual-licensing. That's a feature, not a bug. I'm just pointing out that GPL licensing doesn't protect you from a single-source entity going bankrupt and/or otherwise selling the underlying copyrights. For that kind of protection you really need to perfect that bare license into an actual contract which either is treated as an executory contract that nevertheless can survive per 365(n), or which is non-executory and therefore would bind the successor/assign in bankruptcy.

TL;DR Contract/copyright law is hard, and GNUtards are generally the last people you should go to for legal advice.

 

[Jesse Nicholas Radin]

One of my best friends has been a Linux fanboy for decades. Funny thing was he wasn't even that good with computers growing up. He ended up giving my dad's laptop a virus by downloading a suspicious program on Kazaa or whatever we were using.

He would bluff his way into fancy IT/tech jobs and then constantly call my dad for advice and learn through that. I wish I had his charisma.

 

[Obsessed snowman]

TL;DR Contract/copyright law is hard, and GNUtards are generally the last people you should go to for legal advice.

In the bankruptcy situation you're describing I don't see how MIT or BSD license would hold up any better. The way I see it, you're screwed either way after the new holder revokes the license. Plus this whole situation is a legal grey area in my understanding. This is not really a criticism of GPL.

 

[my penis is on fire]

the Year Of The Linux Desktop meme is going to die in a year or two when Prangjeet Shitpoowamy is appointed as the executive director of the Linux Foundation, and then all the sudden a flood of random pull requests that break everything are approved for no apparent reason, all written by people who can now put "i contriboot to leenux kernal saar" on their O-1 visa applications

 

[Cherenkovblue]

In the bankruptcy situation you're describing I don't see how MIT or BSD license would hold up any better. The way I see it, you're screwed either way after the new holder revokes the license. Plus this whole situation is a legal grey area in my understanding. This is not really a criticism of GPL.

The point is that the GPL doesn't hold up under those situations, and given the many different ways you can evade it's requirements it is no better than MIT or BSD. Now that we have AIslop writing code the GPL is effectively a dead issue and you might as well issue your code under MIT+NIGGER for all the good it will do.

 

[Rendang]

Open-source game engine Godot is drowning in 'AI slop' code contributions: 'I don't know how long we can keep it up' (A)

 

[Lard Shart]

the Year Of The Linux Desktop meme is going to die in a year or two when Prangjeet Shitpoowamy is appointed as the executive director of the Linux Foundation, and then all the sudden a flood of random pull requests that break everything are approved for no apparent reason, all written by people who can now put "i contriboot to leenux kernal saar" on their O-1 visa applications

The Linux Foundation is already pozzed. Despite that, the Linux kernel is still somewhat kept afloat thanks to seasoned meritocrats.

Sadly your prediction is accurate; the flame will burn out. We are starting to see the damage of pozzed influence. It's evident with the forced adoption of Rust. As of recently even Rust cultist are admitting Rust in the kernel is technically inept decision.

We can never have nice things.