5 ms·

So this is basically an attempt to silence a politician. It's about as far as can be from the ideal of free software.

Aloha 5y ago
If you want to play in someone elses sandbox with their toys, you gotta follow their rules. Like, this is society and contracts 101, I get it that no one likes it when it cuts against the group that happen to like, but its fair, and right there in the terms of the license.
eropple 5y ago
So there's an obligation for developers of free software to provide it to people who don't adhere to the licenses in question? Interesting take. Who else do you obligate to free work?
mackal 5y ago
Just because he's a "politician" doesn't mean he can violate the license.
chuckee 5y ago
How does sharing code silence him?
gambiting 5y ago
Do you think that just because someone is a politician they should be given a completely and totally unlimited freedom to do and say whatever they want? What if you're a politician literally running a platform based on genocide? On taking away voting rights from women? On bringing back child labour? On making slavery legal? Should every platform be forced to host you and your views? Or is there a line where you'd go "ok, yeah, actually I can agree with this". Because if there is a line anywhere, then I don't see how you can still hold a view that free software should always support everyone and their beliefs, politicians or not.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- klyrs 5y ago
  Look, I'm no Trump fan, but there's literally no reason to talk politics here, especially that slippery slope stuff. The Trump Group appears to be in violation of the software license they were granted. SFC's mandate is to chase down FOSS license violations. They were made aware of a violation, and they're chasing it down. If my favorite politician was using my code in violation of my license, I'd get up in their grill about that. Was the violation discovered by somebody who dislikes Trump? Yeah, probably. But it doesn't matter. The Trump Group exposes itself to legal risk by not complying with the license, and compliance is easy: show your users the license, and the code. Comply and the threat of a lawsuit vanishes.
  - gambiting 5y ago
    Yeah that is absolutely fair enough. I haven't thought about it from that angle, thanks for writing this.
- AlgorithmicTime 5y ago
  Obviously yes? Assuming we actually believe in democracy, then we must allow politicians to run on whatever platform they will. More than that, we must allow non-politicians to hold and express any political opinion whatsoever. There's no logical limit to saying "well we have free speech and democracy, except for this set of things I don't like." Well, no, you have neither of those things in that case. You have an oligarchy or aristocracy setting the agenda and then letting the little people argue over minutiae. >Should every platform be forced to host you and your views? Actually, yes. A platform of this type is very much like a common carrier. The post office, the phone company, they are obligated to allow your speech on their platforms even if they don't like it. If you want to be a public platform, all legal speech must be allowed. Obviously exceptions for actual threats and pornography.
klyrs 5y ago
Okay, now do the Vizio suit. https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/vizio.html https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/vizio.html Straight up persecution... of people who violate software licenses.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
kokanee 5y ago
I think I understand the spirit of your complaint, but I'm not sure what concrete changes you would support. Are you arguing that the GPL3 license is a poor reflection of open source ideals? Or that the license should provide exemptions for politicians? Or that violating the license should be protected as free speech?
- AlgorithmicTime 5y ago
  The reason this is clearly political and not about software freedom is as follows: they would never, ever do this if, e.g., Barrack Obama started his own social media platform and did the same violation,.
pvarangot 5y ago
If the politician wants to silence the spread of free code I think it's about right that the free software movements fights back.

If you want to play in someone elses sandbox with their toys, you gotta follow their rules. Like, this is society and contracts 101, I get it that no one likes it when it cuts against the group that happen to like, but its fair, and right there in the terms of the license.

eropple 5y ago

So there's an obligation for developers of free software to provide it to people who don't adhere to the licenses in question? Interesting take. Who else do you obligate to free work?

mackal 5y ago

Just because he's a "politician" doesn't mean he can violate the license.

chuckee 5y ago

How does sharing code silence him?

gambiting 5y ago

Do you think that just because someone is a politician they should be given a completely and totally unlimited freedom to do and say whatever they want? What if you're a politician literally running a platform based on genocide? On taking away voting rights from women? On bringing back child labour? On making slavery legal? Should every platform be forced to host you and your views? Or is there a line where you'd go "ok, yeah, actually I can agree with this". Because if there is a line anywhere, then I don't see how you can still hold a view that free software should always support everyone and their beliefs, politicians or not.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
klyrs 5y ago
Look, I'm no Trump fan, but there's literally no reason to talk politics here, especially that slippery slope stuff. The Trump Group appears to be in violation of the software license they were granted. SFC's mandate is to chase down FOSS license violations. They were made aware of a violation, and they're chasing it down. If my favorite politician was using my code in violation of my license, I'd get up in their grill about that. Was the violation discovered by somebody who dislikes Trump? Yeah, probably. But it doesn't matter. The Trump Group exposes itself to legal risk by not complying with the license, and compliance is easy: show your users the license, and the code. Comply and the threat of a lawsuit vanishes.
- gambiting 5y ago
  Yeah that is absolutely fair enough. I haven't thought about it from that angle, thanks for writing this.
AlgorithmicTime 5y ago
Obviously yes? Assuming we actually believe in democracy, then we must allow politicians to run on whatever platform they will. More than that, we must allow non-politicians to hold and express any political opinion whatsoever. There's no logical limit to saying "well we have free speech and democracy, except for this set of things I don't like." Well, no, you have neither of those things in that case. You have an oligarchy or aristocracy setting the agenda and then letting the little people argue over minutiae. >Should every platform be forced to host you and your views? Actually, yes. A platform of this type is very much like a common carrier. The post office, the phone company, they are obligated to allow your speech on their platforms even if they don't like it. If you want to be a public platform, all legal speech must be allowed. Obviously exceptions for actual threats and pornography.

klyrs 5y ago

Okay, now do the Vizio suit. https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/vizio.html https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/vizio.html Straight up persecution... of people who violate software licenses.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

kokanee 5y ago

I think I understand the spirit of your complaint, but I'm not sure what concrete changes you would support. Are you arguing that the GPL3 license is a poor reflection of open source ideals? Or that the license should provide exemptions for politicians? Or that violating the license should be protected as free speech?

AlgorithmicTime 5y ago
The reason this is clearly political and not about software freedom is as follows: they would never, ever do this if, e.g., Barrack Obama started his own social media platform and did the same violation,.

pvarangot 5y ago

If the politician wants to silence the spread of free code I think it's about right that the free software movements fights back.