5 ms·

And of course this is really about software freedom and they would take a similarly hard line with anyone using the software

woodruffw 5y ago
> And of course this is really about software freedom and they would take a similarly hard line with anyone using the software The SFC is a relatively well known software freedom advocacy and watchdog group, one with 15 years of legal action under its belt. Are you implying that this action somehow breaks the mould with their prior work?
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
hairofadog 5y ago
Anyone breaking the terms of the software, sure. Seems fair.
voz_ 5y ago
I'm fine with special rules for fascists and traitors.
- qaq 5y ago
  You are fine with it as long as people who decide who's a fascist are from a camp you support.
- Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
  Be careful with that, it might turn out that you yourself is a fascist. Fascists in my country do not know that they are fascists, I'm pretty sure it happens in other countries too.
  - jokethrowaway 5y ago
    A very small number of people are fascists. It's just name calling your enemy to incite your people to punch them. Do the fascists in your country want a totalitarian one party dictatorship, racism and war against other countries? If so, they should know they're fascists and they will be more than happy to tell you so. I've talked to fascists and they're unapologetic - everyone else you call fascist is just your political enemy and you're slandering them.
    - Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
      > Do the fascists in your country want a totalitarian one party dictatorship, racism and war against other countries? If so, they should know they're fascists and they will be more than happy to tell you so. Oh, my sweet summer child! They do want most of those things (dictatorship, one party rule, war, less so on racism, which is not a hard requirement anyway), but they believe that fascists are their enemies!
  - gfodor 5y ago
    One good indicator of if someone is a fascist is that if they actually stop being in charge for reasons other than death or military defeat they are not a fascist.
    - monocasa 5y ago
      That would exclude obvious fascists like Pinochet.
      - gfodor 5y ago
        Even if Pinochet was a fascist, it is hardly "obvious." Dictators may step down. Fascist dictators, not so much. Trump could have kicked off a civil war and retained his power past the deadline with one or two sentences. If he is a fascist, he is a fairly uncommitted one.
        monocasa 5y ago
        Pinochet is one of the clearest fascists of the past half century. It's very obvious.
        gfodor 5y ago
        In any case this is irrelevant. My point was that if you want to know if someone is a fascist, a good sign they are not a fascist is if they step down from power for reasons other than by force. Particularly if they had the ability to start an armed conflict to maintain their power up until they were removed by force.
        monocasa 5y ago
        How is a counter example irrelevant?
        gfodor 5y ago
        You're right, it's relevant. If you presume he was a fascist dictator, then my test fails.
eropple 5y ago
Maybe, maybe not. It doesn't matter; unlike the active protection considerations of trademark, copyright and licensing are in no way obligated to be applied evenly. I trust you're not surprised that it turns out that folks who are considered to be generally bad-faith actors--or, y'know, literal-not-figurative fascists, no matter how ineffectual they are--get less leash than your average person.
- jimbob45 5y ago
  >copyright and licensing are in no way obligated to be applied evenly That's interesting. Is that why Apple is getting a pass for giving some app developers sweetheart deals on their App Store?
  - mulmen 5y ago
    No. They get a pass because it is their App Store. Sweetheart deals are also known as doing business.
klyrs 5y ago
Also this week, they announced action against Vizio for a GPL violation. https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/vizio.html https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/vizio.html HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28920954 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28920954
lghh 5y ago
Seems reasonable that someone would enforce their license that prevents use of their software for someone they specifically don't want using their software.
yodon 5y ago
Do you have evidence the FSF has commonly ignored prominent license violations in the past that would make it surprising for them to take action here? If not, please refrain from casting unsubstantiated aspersions.
gfodor 5y ago
Feels to me like if this goes to court there's a good chance the AGPL will be thrown out as-is. Otherwise, it means that if an engineer accidentally pushes a configuration error to a firewall for a few minutes, and one individual happens to hit the site while it is exposed, suddenly the company has to disclose all of its IP. This seems relatively insane, so if they're going to push on it so hard to make a political statement it may on net be worse to see it be thrown out. You know damn well this will go to court before Trump's army of lawyers concedes and releases any source code. And, as usual, it is going to revolting to see tribalism consume everything - I suppose it was a matter of time before supporting the GPL became a "blue or red team" position.
- adrr 5y ago
  Default copyright law doesn’t allow for copying the source. AGPL provides people with more rights than the default. Assuming it is a registered copyright, if AGPL license is found invalid then copyright owner could file for statutory damages which could be quite high.
- onionisafruit 5y ago
  If it's decided that AGPL isn't a valid license, that will mean that Trump's org and most of the rest of us have no license to use Mastadon and thousands of other software projects.
  - gfodor 5y ago
    Correct. I'm not sure of your point. This would obviously be immediately rectified with a new version that addresses any judgement.
    - onionisafruit 5y ago
      I had no point. It's just interesting to consider the fallout from that. Some projects could relicense as you say if they have consent from all of their copyright owners, but other projects aren't in a position to do that. They have contributors who can't be contacted or wouldn't be willing to relicense their work.
Kye 5y ago
You're implying some hypocrisy that I haven't seen. Who is the other person/organization that violated the license of open source code but got off without criticism? Even huge tech companies obey the licenses of the open source software they use. Every proprietary tool I use has a long list of code used with the required preamble for each even if it's the same one, licenses (mostly MIT and similar), and where to find it.

woodruffw 5y ago

> And of course this is really about software freedom and they would take a similarly hard line with anyone using the software The SFC is a relatively well known software freedom advocacy and watchdog group, one with 15 years of legal action under its belt. Are you implying that this action somehow breaks the mould with their prior work?

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

hairofadog 5y ago

Anyone breaking the terms of the software, sure. Seems fair.

voz_ 5y ago

I'm fine with special rules for fascists and traitors.

qaq 5y ago
You are fine with it as long as people who decide who's a fascist are from a camp you support.
Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
Be careful with that, it might turn out that you yourself is a fascist. Fascists in my country do not know that they are fascists, I'm pretty sure it happens in other countries too.
- jokethrowaway 5y ago
  A very small number of people are fascists. It's just name calling your enemy to incite your people to punch them. Do the fascists in your country want a totalitarian one party dictatorship, racism and war against other countries? If so, they should know they're fascists and they will be more than happy to tell you so. I've talked to fascists and they're unapologetic - everyone else you call fascist is just your political enemy and you're slandering them.
  - Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
    > Do the fascists in your country want a totalitarian one party dictatorship, racism and war against other countries? If so, they should know they're fascists and they will be more than happy to tell you so. Oh, my sweet summer child! They do want most of those things (dictatorship, one party rule, war, less so on racism, which is not a hard requirement anyway), but they believe that fascists are their enemies!
- gfodor 5y ago
  One good indicator of if someone is a fascist is that if they actually stop being in charge for reasons other than death or military defeat they are not a fascist.
  - monocasa 5y ago
    That would exclude obvious fascists like Pinochet.
    - gfodor 5y ago
      Even if Pinochet was a fascist, it is hardly "obvious." Dictators may step down. Fascist dictators, not so much. Trump could have kicked off a civil war and retained his power past the deadline with one or two sentences. If he is a fascist, he is a fairly uncommitted one.
      - monocasa 5y ago
        Pinochet is one of the clearest fascists of the past half century. It's very obvious.
        gfodor 5y ago
        In any case this is irrelevant. My point was that if you want to know if someone is a fascist, a good sign they are not a fascist is if they step down from power for reasons other than by force. Particularly if they had the ability to start an armed conflict to maintain their power up until they were removed by force.
        monocasa 5y ago
        How is a counter example irrelevant?
        gfodor 5y ago
        You're right, it's relevant. If you presume he was a fascist dictator, then my test fails.

eropple 5y ago

Maybe, maybe not. It doesn't matter; unlike the active protection considerations of trademark, copyright and licensing are in no way obligated to be applied evenly. I trust you're not surprised that it turns out that folks who are considered to be generally bad-faith actors--or, y'know, literal-not-figurative fascists, no matter how ineffectual they are--get less leash than your average person.

jimbob45 5y ago
>copyright and licensing are in no way obligated to be applied evenly That's interesting. Is that why Apple is getting a pass for giving some app developers sweetheart deals on their App Store?
- mulmen 5y ago
  No. They get a pass because it is their App Store. Sweetheart deals are also known as doing business.

klyrs 5y ago

Also this week, they announced action against Vizio for a GPL violation. https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/vizio.html https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/vizio.html HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28920954 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28920954

lghh 5y ago

Seems reasonable that someone would enforce their license that prevents use of their software for someone they specifically don't want using their software.

yodon 5y ago

Do you have evidence the FSF has commonly ignored prominent license violations in the past that would make it surprising for them to take action here? If not, please refrain from casting unsubstantiated aspersions.

gfodor 5y ago

Feels to me like if this goes to court there's a good chance the AGPL will be thrown out as-is. Otherwise, it means that if an engineer accidentally pushes a configuration error to a firewall for a few minutes, and one individual happens to hit the site while it is exposed, suddenly the company has to disclose all of its IP. This seems relatively insane, so if they're going to push on it so hard to make a political statement it may on net be worse to see it be thrown out. You know damn well this will go to court before Trump's army of lawyers concedes and releases any source code. And, as usual, it is going to revolting to see tribalism consume everything - I suppose it was a matter of time before supporting the GPL became a "blue or red team" position.

adrr 5y ago
Default copyright law doesn’t allow for copying the source. AGPL provides people with more rights than the default. Assuming it is a registered copyright, if AGPL license is found invalid then copyright owner could file for statutory damages which could be quite high.
onionisafruit 5y ago
If it's decided that AGPL isn't a valid license, that will mean that Trump's org and most of the rest of us have no license to use Mastadon and thousands of other software projects.
- gfodor 5y ago
  Correct. I'm not sure of your point. This would obviously be immediately rectified with a new version that addresses any judgement.
  - onionisafruit 5y ago
    I had no point. It's just interesting to consider the fallout from that. Some projects could relicense as you say if they have consent from all of their copyright owners, but other projects aren't in a position to do that. They have contributors who can't be contacted or wouldn't be willing to relicense their work.

Kye 5y ago

You're implying some hypocrisy that I haven't seen. Who is the other person/organization that violated the license of open source code but got off without criticism? Even huge tech companies obey the licenses of the open source software they use. Every proprietary tool I use has a long list of code used with the required preamble for each even if it's the same one, licenses (mostly MIT and similar), and where to find it.