3 ms·

If you believe using MIT licensed software is doing so, I suppose? I do not hold that viewpoint, however.

trod1234 1y ago
Well that's extremely shortsighted, almost to the point of blindness. The author clearly went out of the way to put code in to signal to people that if you use the software and you are a company earning revenue using it, to help support the project. This is clearly breaking the social contract that comes along with that MIT license, guided by what the author says. When you break the social contract, and by doing so you induce people to follow you to do the same, eventually (given sufficient breakage) you end up in a world on fire; filled with violence and destruction. This happens because non-violent conflict resolution can't take place without society, which itself is based on the social contract. A contract that you broke by trying to work around the authors intent. It is well known that with people, "What you do in the small things, you do in big things that matter when everything is on the line". This piece of old wisdom, shows a cognitive preferential bias. Ipso facto, you are supporting that world on fire filled with violence coming into being by those actions. Sure you don't see anything wrong now, but that is blindness, and you can hold that isolated view right now while society is still in a working state, but actions and choices matter, and society moves towards the aggregate, either towards stability or towards chaos. There is a time that is not far off, where that kind of behavior is going to have severe consequences. If you did this without any resistance or seeing this as wrong, you have to ask yourself how many other things you've done that you just didn't notice? Are your kids modeling this blindness in themselves? Mimicking you as a role model. Blindness puts people at a significant disadvantage because they often can't see the dangers they often create indirectly for themselves.
- lytedev 1y ago
  While I think you have a point buried in there worth discussing, I simply can't equate me wanting slightly different functionality from MIT-licensed software and making it happen equivalent to these kinds of breakdowns in society. The author also went of their way to indicate this license, for what it's worth.
  - trod1234 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - lytedev 1y ago
      > You ignore the authors words and published intent, and go so far as to undo them I guess I took the MIT license as the author's word and intent. Are you saying their choice of license is not? It clearly outlines that I am free to use the software without restriction which you conveniently leave out of your core argument. If you want to talk about open source and the social contract, this is the heart of it: freedom, which I have exercised. If I was using it for commercial purposes and doing something more against the "spirit of open source" I think I might be inclined to agree with you. But I'm not.
      - milkshakes 1y ago
        the license enumerates the rights the author has bestowed upon you. the funding page clarifies their intent: >Anubis is provided to the public for free in order to help advance the common good. In return, we ask (but not demand, these are words on the internet, not word of law) that you not remove the Anubis character from your deployment. you are of course free to do whatever you want with this code, the license is as you point out quite clear. but so is the intent, and feigning ignorance of the author's intent is disingenuous at best.
        lytedev 1y ago
        I'm not aware of any ignorance (feigned or otherwise) on my part or in my comments about my ignoring the author's request. I'm aware that I am doing so and have made that clear and shared with others that also would choose to do so as they deem reasonable. If you'll allow me to make assumptions, given that the author neither demands -- and is, in fact, explicit about not doing so -- nor licenses the software in such a way as to prevent this use case, I am guessing the author had at least some intent or foreknowledge around some folks wanting to swap the images. I further assumed that such use cases were for instances such as those the author wrote Anubis for to begin with, protecting small git forges with little resources. Now, I admit my server is not small and I have resources, and so am happy to pay for and donate towards open source software, but in this case the only option was to contact the author, which is something I deemed overkill in this case. I would simply wait and see how the author planned to approach the issue and revisit at that time. Perhaps I've made the wrong move socially or ethically, which I think is at least a worthwhile discussion to have, and if I should decide I feel like I've made an ethically sideways choice, I will eat my words and make things right as best as I can. However, if we're going to talk about intent, I an guessing there is a bit more nuance to bring to the conversation. Or perhaps the author can chime in or update the documentation to be more clear, because the liberal license says quite a lot about intent to me. I think it's at least a little disingenuous to say that the software license carries no intent behind it (spirit of open source and all that) and is "only" an enumeration of my rights.

Well that's extremely shortsighted, almost to the point of blindness. The author clearly went out of the way to put code in to signal to people that if you use the software and you are a company earning revenue using it, to help support the project. This is clearly breaking the social contract that comes along with that MIT license, guided by what the author says. When you break the social contract, and by doing so you induce people to follow you to do the same, eventually (given sufficient breakage) you end up in a world on fire; filled with violence and destruction. This happens because non-violent conflict resolution can't take place without society, which itself is based on the social contract. A contract that you broke by trying to work around the authors intent. It is well known that with people, "What you do in the small things, you do in big things that matter when everything is on the line". This piece of old wisdom, shows a cognitive preferential bias. Ipso facto, you are supporting that world on fire filled with violence coming into being by those actions. Sure you don't see anything wrong now, but that is blindness, and you can hold that isolated view right now while society is still in a working state, but actions and choices matter, and society moves towards the aggregate, either towards stability or towards chaos. There is a time that is not far off, where that kind of behavior is going to have severe consequences. If you did this without any resistance or seeing this as wrong, you have to ask yourself how many other things you've done that you just didn't notice? Are your kids modeling this blindness in themselves? Mimicking you as a role model. Blindness puts people at a significant disadvantage because they often can't see the dangers they often create indirectly for themselves.

lytedev 1y ago
While I think you have a point buried in there worth discussing, I simply can't equate me wanting slightly different functionality from MIT-licensed software and making it happen equivalent to these kinds of breakdowns in society. The author also went of their way to indicate this license, for what it's worth.
- trod1234 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - lytedev 1y ago
    > You ignore the authors words and published intent, and go so far as to undo them I guess I took the MIT license as the author's word and intent. Are you saying their choice of license is not? It clearly outlines that I am free to use the software without restriction which you conveniently leave out of your core argument. If you want to talk about open source and the social contract, this is the heart of it: freedom, which I have exercised. If I was using it for commercial purposes and doing something more against the "spirit of open source" I think I might be inclined to agree with you. But I'm not.
    - milkshakes 1y ago
      the license enumerates the rights the author has bestowed upon you. the funding page clarifies their intent: >Anubis is provided to the public for free in order to help advance the common good. In return, we ask (but not demand, these are words on the internet, not word of law) that you not remove the Anubis character from your deployment. you are of course free to do whatever you want with this code, the license is as you point out quite clear. but so is the intent, and feigning ignorance of the author's intent is disingenuous at best.
      - lytedev 1y ago
        I'm not aware of any ignorance (feigned or otherwise) on my part or in my comments about my ignoring the author's request. I'm aware that I am doing so and have made that clear and shared with others that also would choose to do so as they deem reasonable. If you'll allow me to make assumptions, given that the author neither demands -- and is, in fact, explicit about not doing so -- nor licenses the software in such a way as to prevent this use case, I am guessing the author had at least some intent or foreknowledge around some folks wanting to swap the images. I further assumed that such use cases were for instances such as those the author wrote Anubis for to begin with, protecting small git forges with little resources. Now, I admit my server is not small and I have resources, and so am happy to pay for and donate towards open source software, but in this case the only option was to contact the author, which is something I deemed overkill in this case. I would simply wait and see how the author planned to approach the issue and revisit at that time. Perhaps I've made the wrong move socially or ethically, which I think is at least a worthwhile discussion to have, and if I should decide I feel like I've made an ethically sideways choice, I will eat my words and make things right as best as I can. However, if we're going to talk about intent, I an guessing there is a bit more nuance to bring to the conversation. Or perhaps the author can chime in or update the documentation to be more clear, because the liberal license says quite a lot about intent to me. I think it's at least a little disingenuous to say that the software license carries no intent behind it (spirit of open source and all that) and is "only" an enumeration of my rights.