|
i'm thinking the fafol could be used alongside a note to contact the developer(s) for an alternative license. it looks like it'd be a great poison pill for anyone with a legal team while the normies/hobbyists would be fine with it. technically closed source projects could also use fafol in order to have access to the revoke option, since lack of source code doesn't prevent bad people from exploiting software either. also the explicitly subjective nature of the license starts to get into the territory of a software coop where the members are deciding who to let in, but participating in a committee for something like that sounds like hell to me i've been using the hippocratic license (also mentioned in the blog post) to fill a similar poison pill role. i think fafol could accomplish the same thing with less boilerplate, and it feels like the spirit/tone is a bit more in line with what i'd want to convey in a hobby project license, when the hippocratic one feels more academic. but fafol does come at the cost of more swearing which is kinda lovely Progressive JPEG fucked around with this message at 21:49 on Nov 16, 2020 |
# ? Nov 16, 2020 21:45 |
|
|
# ? Mar 28, 2024 13:09 |
|
i always just used the Crockford Do No Evil license If it was enough for IBM to pay him and google to not use it, it's good enough for me. Even if scotus don't give a poo poo anymore, precedence still feels powerful to me also I just don't contribute to open source projects that I know are used by lovely companies. I know people who contribute to popular stuff as a way to boost their own ego in the programmer "sphere" If you are capable if making meaningful changes to something like react, direct your abilities elsewhere because there's not as many people as you think can do that and your contributions are disproportionately helping facebook. MeruFM fucked around with this message at 08:25 on Nov 17, 2020 |
# ? Nov 17, 2020 08:17 |
|
found a good list of licenses i think my favorite is the Don't Ask Me About It License quote:Copying and distribution of this file, with or without modification, are permitted in any medium provided you do not contact the author about the file or any problems you are having with the file. quote:License or the license that only allows use on behalf of people who are dead
|
# ? Nov 18, 2020 17:34 |
|
idgi if the government is already doing evil by dronestriking people, then we should at least make it slightly less evil by making sure the drones are controlled using free and open source software
|
# ? Nov 18, 2020 18:19 |
|
suck my woke dick posted:idgi what the gently caress is this title
|
# ? Nov 20, 2020 03:26 |
|
Captain Foo posted:what the gently caress is this title not 100% sure whats goin on with the post either
|
# ? Nov 20, 2020 05:17 |
|
Meanwhile in the business world: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/12/neal-katyal-supreme-court-nestle-cargill-child-slavery.htmlquote:On Tuesday, the Supreme Court confronted a seemingly simple question: If an American corporation aids and abets child slavery in a foreign country, can its victims sue the company in an American court? so uh, there might be something desirable about not leaving morals and ethics to corporations after all maybe
|
# ? Dec 2, 2020 15:08 |
|
Death of an Open Source Business Model
|
# ? Dec 10, 2020 09:46 |
|
I read that one yesterday and I liked it. There was a follow-up discussion online (probably HN?) that quickly mentioned models that use open source and are successful, but it's a bit hard to argue at least in the server space where one of the big players is just gonna take your poo poo and run you out of business with it.
|
# ? Dec 10, 2020 15:56 |
|
I don't quite understand how a licence like fafol is valid or enforceable. At least in my country, for a contract to be valid, the rights and obligations dealt with under the contract need to be "certain". Leaving the meaning of key terms to the discretion of one party without actually listing specific permitted or forbidden uses is a sure-fire way to render your agreement void and unenforceable. If your licence agreement is void then you may as well pump out your software with no licence at all (also not a great idea given current copyright laws, although at least you may have control I guess). I understand the appeal of these licences but personally I wouldn't use them. If you are truly concerned about the potential for your software to be used for evil, an attempt to constrain use of your software via a licence is probably not going to work, especially if state actors, criminals or powerful businesses want to use it. If your concern is great enough, don't release the code, release it only to those you trust, or remove the functionality you are concerned about. On a bit of a side note, I personally think it'd be fun to release under a GPL-like licence, but restrict the permissions granted under the licence to natural persons only (specifically excluding corporations, government bodies, and their agents/employees). I wonder what the FSF would say about that and whether it conforms to their four freedoms.
|
# ? Dec 11, 2020 00:08 |
|
it’s time for sovereign software
|
# ? Dec 11, 2020 12:14 |
|
Buck Turgidson posted:I don't quite understand how a licence like fafol is valid or enforceable. At least in my country, for a contract to be valid, the rights and obligations dealt with under the contract need to be "certain". Leaving the meaning of key terms to the discretion of one party without actually listing specific permitted or forbidden uses is a sure-fire way to render your agreement void and unenforceable. If your licence agreement is void then you may as well pump out your software with no licence at all (also not a great idea given current copyright laws, although at least you may have control I guess). They mostly rely on the "poison pill" aspect where corporate lawyers' aversion to running into legal grey areas for fun is not as developed as their liking of being on retainer while not being in court, so most of the advice is going to be "don't even bother touching these, we won't go there." No one really wants to be first at testing that litigation. Specifically when the license is seen as invalid, it doesn't mean you default to open source, it means you default to having been illegally using a piece of software for your product, so the license is more or less in a legal limbo for all stated usages. The risk is generally higher for a corporation than an individual user. In general GPLv3 is sufficient to get that effect, but some corporations have been hungry enough about some pieces of software to either get their lawyers to look at it and then comply because the cost of developing software would be higher than asking the lawyers to just look at the loving thing (i.e. ffmpeg is the classic one where you can look into any smart TV's manual or android "about" section and go get the licenses), or to find a workaround they feel safe enough about (stick the OSS component behind a server, consider it separate as a codebase). Those with more powerful lawyers or a greater fear from the legal perspective just ban it outright and prefer to eat the cost of redeveloping poo poo from scratch (Apple is probably the best example there). The "stick it behind the network" is what the folks at MongoDB and Redis have tried to block with newer licenses.
|
# ? Dec 11, 2020 16:46 |
|
MononcQc posted:They mostly rely on the "poison pill" aspect where corporate lawyers' aversion to running into legal grey areas for fun is not as developed as their liking of being on retainer while not being in court, so most of the advice is going to be "don't even bother touching these, we won't go there." No one really wants to be first at testing that litigation. Specifically when the license is seen as invalid, it doesn't mean you default to open source, it means you default to having been illegally using a piece of software for your product, so the license is more or less in a legal limbo for all stated usages. The risk is generally higher for a corporation than an individual user. I am just wondering if there are better ways of doing this, if you are set on going open source. Using a licence which may be void still runs the risk of exposing "innocent" users of your software to harm. For example, imagine if your IP is assigned to another person or entity for some reason like death, incapacitation, bankruptcy--you can no longer control how these "innocent" users are treated. I wonder if there is room for a hybrid licence model, where you license to natural persons on the same or similar terms as the GPL, but tightly control licences to corporations etc, and place more onerous or restrictive terms on them. Individuals are generally lower risk, because if they do something evil with the software it is probably going to be lower impact, and they are less likely to escape the consequences of their actions than a state actor or corporation. Corporations aren't real people, and I don't care if they don't receive the benefits of things like the four freedoms. One other flaw of these (or any) open source licences is that trying to constrain the use of your open source software by state actors is probably going to fail. Even assuming they recognise copyright law, it might not apply to them, or their use of your software might not count as a copyright infringement in the context in which it is used, or they might simply legislate to change the rules in their favour.
|
# ? Dec 12, 2020 04:52 |
|
For twelve years, you have been asking: what is the Galt License? This is the license text. I am the license that loves its terms. I am the license that does not sacrifice the author’s values. I am the license that has deprived you of free code and thus has destroyed your corporation, and if you wish to know why you are perishing - you who dread knowledge - I am the license who will now tell you.
|
# ? Dec 12, 2020 09:58 |
|
Buck Turgidson posted:I understand the appeal of these licences but personally I wouldn't use them. If you are truly concerned about the potential for your software to be used for evil, an attempt to constrain use of your software via a licence is probably not going to work, especially if state actors, criminals or powerful businesses want to use it. If your concern is great enough, don't release the code, release it only to those you trust, or remove the functionality you are concerned about. This is true. It's that James Mickens "mossad/not mossad" threat model and when we're talking about software licenses I think we are generally dealing with the "not mossad" model. Like you say, if you're worried about what someone who the law does not apply to will do with your software, then yeah the only rational response is to not release it, and that goes for any software license.
|
# ? Dec 13, 2020 04:33 |
|
amazon seems pretty mad about not being able to so blatantly rip off elastic anymore
|
# ? Jan 22, 2021 12:09 |
|
over-funded vc-backed company mad that their open source product is getting used in the way that impedes investor storytime changes license and drives everyone to use competitor’s fork, lol let them fight, etc
|
# ? Jan 22, 2021 16:12 |
|
not to get someone throwing that upton sinclair quote at me, but it extends beyond aws: https://logz.io/blog/open-source-elasticsearch-doubling-down/ i think its fairly clear that elastic (and mongo) found out that their open core model was fundamentally opposed to them being the sole source providers of their offering. this was probably a good business decision (i dunno seems like they're making money hand over fist anyways), but it does mean they aren't particularly good stewards of open source communities. newer companies like timescale and cockroach aren't making that mistake FamDav fucked around with this message at 02:42 on Jan 23, 2021 |
# ? Jan 23, 2021 02:40 |
|
per n-gate quote:Elastic is a hosting provider who thought they were a database vendor, and now they will be digested by hosting providers who are large enough to underwrite a database engineering team as a rounding error. otoh elastic has a fifteen billion dollar market cap lol
|
# ? Jan 23, 2021 02:54 |
|
Rise, thread, and LIVE https://www.baldurbjarnason.com/2021/the-oss-bubble-and-the-blogging-bubble/ quote:Capitalism will always find a way to exploit common resources. It’s just a matter of time.
|
# ? May 17, 2021 00:28 |
|
that's a good post
|
# ? May 17, 2021 05:28 |
|
god imagine if webdev went away. wouldn’t that be terrible. how would we live without npm I hope it doesn’t happen before it’s legal to have street parties again
|
# ? May 17, 2021 07:55 |
|
Soricidus posted:god imagine if webdev went away. wouldn’t that be terrible. how would we live without npm worse really is better.
|
# ? May 17, 2021 07:57 |
|
kinda wanna pick up this dudes book, anyone read it? https://www.amazon.com/Bleeding-Edge-Technology-Turns-Unequal/dp/1780263295/
|
# ? May 17, 2021 08:37 |
|
my library doesn't have it
|
# ? May 17, 2021 14:46 |
|
rotor posted:Rise, thread, and LIVE this was good and i miss having a readily easily read source of high quality posts like this
|
# ? May 17, 2021 15:06 |
|
rotor posted:Rise, thread, and LIVE This is a good article and I like many quotes from it. quote:Most people in the industry don’t realise that the web dev economy is primarily extractive. As with the earlier assumption that Google must be trying to keep Adwords clean and sustainable, there’s the assumption here that somebody in tech must be making sure the work behind OSS is paid for. Or, almost as naively, they assume that it can all subsist as donationware. quote:Many of the misconceptions about OSS stem from the fact that the core of the ecosystem is funded. I had personally written on how we tend to make a ton of poo poo unsustainable by just externalizing the training and knowledge to unpaid parts of the ecosystem and I really enjoyed this one article's take on the economics of it at a broader level. quote:It isn’t just software: web dev education, training, and recruitment exist primarily to extract value from Facebook’s React or Google’s OSS projects. Very few of them invest in figuring out what sort of training will serve their students the best. The easiest thing to sell to both recruiters and students is the big framework on the block, so that’s what they sell and very little else.
|
# ? May 17, 2021 15:08 |
|
it is only partially about licenses, but the log4j debacle pretty clear-cut part of a very bad system. https://christine.website/blog/open-source-broken-2021-12-11
|
# ? Dec 13, 2021 09:31 |
|
its called open sores for a reason.
|
# ? Dec 13, 2021 16:27 |
|
Cybernetic Vermin posted:it is only partially about licenses, but the log4j debacle pretty clear-cut part of a very bad system. https://christine.website/blog/open-source-broken-2021-12-11 "nothing is stopping people to bash us, for work we aren't paid for, for a feature we all dislike yet needed to keep due to backward compatibility concerns." Here's a hot tip for open source developers: you have no business case. If you dont like a feature, drop it. If someone is mad that you no longer have backwards compatibility, tell them to write their own library. I honestly dont understand the mindset that does this kind of volunteer work for multibillion dollar businesses.
|
# ? Dec 13, 2021 18:59 |
|
meanwhile the take over on osnews:quote:Money corrupts anything it touches. I’m insanely grateful for the almost endless number of people contributing to open source projects not because they expect to become rich, but because they enjoy doing it, to show off their skill, for the community of people they love interacting with, for the recognition it sometimes brings, or for the mere secret knowledge that their small project nobody’s ever heard of is a crucial cog in the massive machinery that keeps the technology world spinning. massive security issues people are forced to fix without pay: things working exactly as intended actually
|
# ? Dec 13, 2021 19:07 |
|
Cybernetic Vermin posted:or for the mere secret knowledge that their small project nobody’s ever heard of is a crucial cog in the massive machinery that keeps the technology world spinning. what the gently caress is wrong with people i swear to god
|
# ? Dec 13, 2021 19:10 |
|
posting thread to make rotors head explode: https://twitter.com/_msw_/status/1469716143245967360?s=21
|
# ? Dec 14, 2021 01:07 |
|
free (as in labor)
|
# ? Dec 14, 2021 02:02 |
|
rotor posted:what the gently caress is wrong with people i swear to god i think that particular thing is wanting to enjoy a personal feeling of power without any attendant responsibilities of stewardship but i might be talking out of my rear end
|
# ? Dec 14, 2021 02:05 |
|
raminasi posted:i think that particular thing is wanting to enjoy a personal feeling of power without any attendant responsibilities of stewardship but i might be talking out of my rear end well i think as we can see from the last few days, they in fact have significant responsibilities. I have never met an open source maintainer that was happy about it, and it has always made me wonder why they do it.
|
# ? Dec 14, 2021 04:10 |
|
PCjr sidecar posted:posting thread to make rotors head explode: "We see no evidence of slavery," says glowing review of open source ecosystem
|
# ? Dec 14, 2021 04:12 |
|
you used to be cool, man. it used to be about the code, now you're just in it for the money https://twitter.com/jimjag/status/1470401509263298566
|
# ? Dec 14, 2021 04:16 |
|
"i'm not in it for the money" - a former engineering director for capital one
|
# ? Dec 14, 2021 05:00 |
|
|
# ? Mar 28, 2024 13:09 |
|
when i read those tweets the douche chills are almost crippling
|
# ? Dec 14, 2021 05:09 |