8 ms·

> As far as personal feelings are concerned, of course we would prefer if people so antithetical to our values did not use and benefit from our labour And sens

> As far as personal feelings are concerned, of course we would prefer if people so antithetical to our values did not use and benefit from our labour And sensible people would prefer that license violations would be published and pursued fairly, and personal feelings kept personal, rather than creating a soft list of people and perspectives whose online/computing freedom is less important than others.

rp1 5y ago
That sounds like a personal feeling.
- jrootabega 5y ago
  It's a personal feeling about the purpose of the license, not about the people who are using the license.
  - CTDOCodebases 5y ago
    I read it as being personal at first but on second read interpreted the “antithetical” comment to reference the issue that they were breaking the license and limiting the users freedom.
    - jrootabega 5y ago
      I meant that my comment was a personal feeling about the license, and not about any particular users or violators of the license. The post says "we would prefer if people so antithetical to our values did not use and benefit from our labour", and that is clearly not a criticism of just the nature of the license violation, but the people who are violating it.
      - caf 5y ago
        And? It's their website, they can criticise whoever they like on it.
      - CTDOCodebases 5y ago
        Can’t a generous person who chooses to give away something (on the condition that anyone who chooses to accept this gift does the same) criticise the character of those who take advantage of this kindness for their own personal financial gain?
- hn_throwaway_69 5y ago
  I think this is a tu quoque fallacy. In my view, it is OK to invoke personal feelings about whether personal feelings should be invoked in relation to the enforcement of a software license.
  - rp1 5y ago
    This isn’t a fallacy because I’m not making an argument or asserting the parent commenter is wrong. I’m suggesting to the parent commenter that they follow their own advice and keep their personal beliefs personal. For instance, if someone who eats steak tells me that studies show eating red meat causes heart disease, it’s not a fallacy to suggest that they should stop eating red meat.
    - jrootabega 5y ago
      > I’m suggesting to the parent commenter that they follow their own advice and keep their personal beliefs personal. Why would you suggest that, rp1? This is a place to discuss things. Our beliefs about appropriate ways to publicize license disputes are part of that.
      - rp1 5y ago
        I’m suggesting it because you said that personal beliefs should be kept personal. Similar to how if someone eating steak told me steak was unhealthy, I would advise them to stop eating steak. I read what you originally wrote, assumed it was true, and pointed out a logical inconsistency.
    - hn_throwaway_69 5y ago
      >I’m not making an argument or asserting the parent commenter is wrong. I’m suggesting to the parent commenter that they follow their own advice and keep their personal beliefs personal. You're going further than that, though, aren't you? You're impliedly suggesting they're a hypocrite. You're doing that to cast doubt on whether it's correct to invoke personal feelings when enforcing software licences by saying they are invoking personal feelings themselves when discussing that issue. I suggest to you that this is an argument, and a blatant fallacy. >For instance, if someone who eats steak tells me that studies show eating red meat causes heart disease, it’s not a fallacy to suggest that they should stop eating red meat In your example, if you used the fact that someone who said red meat was bad ate red meat in support of the proposition that it is not bad to eat red meat, that would be a perfect example of the fallacy.
IiydAbITMvJkqKf 5y ago
Then the mastodon devs shouldn't have picked the AGPL.
furyg3 5y ago
Just as Truth Social can use Mastodon's source code to spread lies and hate as long as they comply with the license, so can Mastodon use their own blog to disprove of Truth Social... as long as they enforce the license. Their statement does not detract from their action.
- jrootabega 5y ago
  I think it makes people believe they will enforce the license unevenly to satisfy their personal feelings about who is using it, as well as add an unwritten "these kinds of people are are not allowed to use our software" clause to their license.
  - rsynnott 5y ago
    > I think it makes people believe they will enforce the license unevenly to satisfy their personal feelings about who is using it Maybe they will. As copyright holders, they are allowed to do that (though I don't think they have copyright assignation, so there would also be lots of _other_ copyright holders who could attempt different enforcement, presumably).
    - caf 5y ago
      Right, the copyright holder could grant an alternative license with any terms they like to any specific recipients they'd like to.
  - revolvingocelot 5y ago
    A sensible person might wonder what justification you have for that belief. Looking at the respective histories of both groups, I think you'll find that the violators are the sort of people to engage in uneven enforcement. Moreover, is there another Mastodon license violator who's getting away with it because of their ostensibly favourable politics? What does it mean for your supposition if there's only the one violator?
  - long_time_gone 5y ago
    If that happens you would have a point, until then you are preemptively playing victim.
usui 5y ago
Is there an example of a software with a license with more overt political views being directly stated in the agreement ? I'm NOT saying that it's wrong to have personal views, or to make a statement about what Mastodon feels about Trump's Truth Social, but I am curious if there is software in wide-use with something like "No anti-vaxxers". So far the most ideology-enforcing licenses I know are mainly about the battle for Free Software or code availability. Just imagine if there was a license demanding a certain way to feel politically (other than open-source political views).
- jrootabega 5y ago
  There's the json "don't use this for evil" license.
  - usui 5y ago
    Wow! I had no idea. That is actually hilarious and many parties have even used that to reject it's inclusion as Free Software https://wiki.debian.org/qa.debian.org/jsonevil https://wiki.debian.org/qa.debian.org/jsonevil I was hoping for something more enforceable than that, but still interesting enough. Looks like half of all companies using JSON are in trouble (obviously it's subjective, don't think that needs to be said).
    - jrootabega 5y ago
      It's not the JSON format, but rather certain libraries which process JSON (I should have been more precise). Many companies avoid using those libraries for that very reason.
- teddyh 5y ago
  IIRC, there were a lot of those licenses in the 1990s and early 2000s. They were mostly all weeded out in the license flame wars, largely initiated by system integrators and re-distributors who wanted to have a standardized set of licenses and not have to deal with any cute extra restrictions. Nowadays, software should use a license approved by OSI or FSF, or the software will find itself not being worth consideration.
serial_dev 5y ago
But isn't it exactly what they say? Like "hey, I wish they didn't use Mastodon, but there's a license and they can use our software if they want to and they comply with the license"? Or did I misunderstand this? Their only issue in the article is that they don't comply with the license. I believe the "personal feelings" paragraph was added so that they explain to some people that they don't want to/cannot prevent them from using Mastodon. I'm sure they had received emails like "how can you allow Trump to use your open source software", "stop him, he is evil, and if you allow him to use Mastodon, you are evil too".
- porbelm 5y ago
  Yeah I don't get why people don't understand the sentence or the point of it. "[...] people so antithetical to our values" implies that the values of Mastodon are the opposite of the people using the code. I.E. since everyone knows the Trump people are racist, homophobic, and misogynist pieces of shit, the Mastodon company values are to be the opposite of that.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- jrootabega 5y ago
  I could understand that interpretation. I just don't believe it's true. I think the best thing to say, if anything was necessary to say, would have been "This action is meant to defend the license, and does not constitute a judgment of the user that is violating the license."
  - bettysdiagnose 5y ago
    OK but why not give them the benefit of the doubt? You've given no reason why you don't believe them, you just say you don't. OK, so what?
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
blitzar 5y ago
> if people so antithetical to our values Values such as forking a public project, removing the logo, then claiming that the new project is proprietary private work that they did themselves. People with values like that can fuck right off, but if they comply with the licence, they can use it.
gargron 5y ago
Would you care to finish reading the sentence you're quoting the first part of? > As far as personal feelings are concerned, of course we would prefer if people so antithetical to our values did not use and benefit from our labour, *but the reality of working on free software is that you give up the possibility of choosing who can and cannot use it from the get-go*, so in a practical sense *the only issue we can take with something like Truth Social is if they don’t even comply with the free software license* we release our work under.

rp1 5y ago

That sounds like a personal feeling.

jrootabega 5y ago
It's a personal feeling about the purpose of the license, not about the people who are using the license.
- CTDOCodebases 5y ago
  I read it as being personal at first but on second read interpreted the “antithetical” comment to reference the issue that they were breaking the license and limiting the users freedom.
  - jrootabega 5y ago
    I meant that my comment was a personal feeling about the license, and not about any particular users or violators of the license. The post says "we would prefer if people so antithetical to our values did not use and benefit from our labour", and that is clearly not a criticism of just the nature of the license violation, but the people who are violating it.
    - caf 5y ago
      And? It's their website, they can criticise whoever they like on it.
    - CTDOCodebases 5y ago
      Can’t a generous person who chooses to give away something (on the condition that anyone who chooses to accept this gift does the same) criticise the character of those who take advantage of this kindness for their own personal financial gain?
hn_throwaway_69 5y ago
I think this is a tu quoque fallacy. In my view, it is OK to invoke personal feelings about whether personal feelings should be invoked in relation to the enforcement of a software license.
- rp1 5y ago
  This isn’t a fallacy because I’m not making an argument or asserting the parent commenter is wrong. I’m suggesting to the parent commenter that they follow their own advice and keep their personal beliefs personal. For instance, if someone who eats steak tells me that studies show eating red meat causes heart disease, it’s not a fallacy to suggest that they should stop eating red meat.
  - jrootabega 5y ago
    > I’m suggesting to the parent commenter that they follow their own advice and keep their personal beliefs personal. Why would you suggest that, rp1? This is a place to discuss things. Our beliefs about appropriate ways to publicize license disputes are part of that.
    - rp1 5y ago
      I’m suggesting it because you said that personal beliefs should be kept personal. Similar to how if someone eating steak told me steak was unhealthy, I would advise them to stop eating steak. I read what you originally wrote, assumed it was true, and pointed out a logical inconsistency.
  - hn_throwaway_69 5y ago
    >I’m not making an argument or asserting the parent commenter is wrong. I’m suggesting to the parent commenter that they follow their own advice and keep their personal beliefs personal. You're going further than that, though, aren't you? You're impliedly suggesting they're a hypocrite. You're doing that to cast doubt on whether it's correct to invoke personal feelings when enforcing software licences by saying they are invoking personal feelings themselves when discussing that issue. I suggest to you that this is an argument, and a blatant fallacy. >For instance, if someone who eats steak tells me that studies show eating red meat causes heart disease, it’s not a fallacy to suggest that they should stop eating red meat In your example, if you used the fact that someone who said red meat was bad ate red meat in support of the proposition that it is not bad to eat red meat, that would be a perfect example of the fallacy.

IiydAbITMvJkqKf 5y ago

Then the mastodon devs shouldn't have picked the AGPL.

furyg3 5y ago

Just as Truth Social can use Mastodon's source code to spread lies and hate as long as they comply with the license, so can Mastodon use their own blog to disprove of Truth Social... as long as they enforce the license. Their statement does not detract from their action.

jrootabega 5y ago
I think it makes people believe they will enforce the license unevenly to satisfy their personal feelings about who is using it, as well as add an unwritten "these kinds of people are are not allowed to use our software" clause to their license.
- rsynnott 5y ago
  > I think it makes people believe they will enforce the license unevenly to satisfy their personal feelings about who is using it Maybe they will. As copyright holders, they are allowed to do that (though I don't think they have copyright assignation, so there would also be lots of _other_ copyright holders who could attempt different enforcement, presumably).
  - caf 5y ago
    Right, the copyright holder could grant an alternative license with any terms they like to any specific recipients they'd like to.
- revolvingocelot 5y ago
  A sensible person might wonder what justification you have for that belief. Looking at the respective histories of both groups, I think you'll find that the violators are the sort of people to engage in uneven enforcement. Moreover, is there another Mastodon license violator who's getting away with it because of their ostensibly favourable politics? What does it mean for your supposition if there's only the one violator?
- long_time_gone 5y ago
  If that happens you would have a point, until then you are preemptively playing victim.

usui 5y ago

Is there an example of a software with a license with more overt political views being directly stated in the agreement ? I'm NOT saying that it's wrong to have personal views, or to make a statement about what Mastodon feels about Trump's Truth Social, but I am curious if there is software in wide-use with something like "No anti-vaxxers". So far the most ideology-enforcing licenses I know are mainly about the battle for Free Software or code availability. Just imagine if there was a license demanding a certain way to feel politically (other than open-source political views).

jrootabega 5y ago
There's the json "don't use this for evil" license.
- usui 5y ago
  Wow! I had no idea. That is actually hilarious and many parties have even used that to reject it's inclusion as Free Software https://wiki.debian.org/qa.debian.org/jsonevil https://wiki.debian.org/qa.debian.org/jsonevil I was hoping for something more enforceable than that, but still interesting enough. Looks like half of all companies using JSON are in trouble (obviously it's subjective, don't think that needs to be said).
  - jrootabega 5y ago
    It's not the JSON format, but rather certain libraries which process JSON (I should have been more precise). Many companies avoid using those libraries for that very reason.
teddyh 5y ago
IIRC, there were a lot of those licenses in the 1990s and early 2000s. They were mostly all weeded out in the license flame wars, largely initiated by system integrators and re-distributors who wanted to have a standardized set of licenses and not have to deal with any cute extra restrictions. Nowadays, software should use a license approved by OSI or FSF, or the software will find itself not being worth consideration.

serial_dev 5y ago

But isn't it exactly what they say? Like "hey, I wish they didn't use Mastodon, but there's a license and they can use our software if they want to and they comply with the license"? Or did I misunderstand this? Their only issue in the article is that they don't comply with the license. I believe the "personal feelings" paragraph was added so that they explain to some people that they don't want to/cannot prevent them from using Mastodon. I'm sure they had received emails like "how can you allow Trump to use your open source software", "stop him, he is evil, and if you allow him to use Mastodon, you are evil too".

porbelm 5y ago
Yeah I don't get why people don't understand the sentence or the point of it. "[...] people so antithetical to our values" implies that the values of Mastodon are the opposite of the people using the code. I.E. since everyone knows the Trump people are racist, homophobic, and misogynist pieces of shit, the Mastodon company values are to be the opposite of that.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
jrootabega 5y ago
I could understand that interpretation. I just don't believe it's true. I think the best thing to say, if anything was necessary to say, would have been "This action is meant to defend the license, and does not constitute a judgment of the user that is violating the license."
- bettysdiagnose 5y ago
  OK but why not give them the benefit of the doubt? You've given no reason why you don't believe them, you just say you don't. OK, so what?

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

blitzar 5y ago

> if people so antithetical to our values Values such as forking a public project, removing the logo, then claiming that the new project is proprietary private work that they did themselves. People with values like that can fuck right off, but if they comply with the licence, they can use it.

gargron 5y ago

Would you care to finish reading the sentence you're quoting the first part of? > As far as personal feelings are concerned, of course we would prefer if people so antithetical to our values did not use and benefit from our labour, *but the reality of working on free software is that you give up the possibility of choosing who can and cannot use it from the get-go*, so in a practical sense *the only issue we can take with something like Truth Social is if they don’t even comply with the free software license* we release our work under.