3 ms·

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 an

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.
      - milkshakes 1y ago
        in fact, the author has chimed in and you still choose to argue with him. at this point i think it's clear that you aren't confused about his intent at all, you just don't care about it. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43865945 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43865945
        lytedev 1y ago
        I never claimed confusion, but that there is more to "intent" here than what one page of documentation says. I think it's clear the author "desires" or "wants" folks to keep the images. However, I think the author also "wants" users to use the software without restriction, hence the license. If I say I intend one thing in one place, but then also say another thing orthogonal to that thing elsewhere that seems to be at odds, what was my intent truly? If my actions do not line up with my words, how do external parties judge what is the socially acceptable approach given my two statements that are at odds? I simply think the choice of license says a lot more about intent, and is, in fact, the mechanism by which a creator decides how their code may be used. If the author truly intends their software to be used a certain way, the license is _the_ way to have control over that. I believe this conversation is a bit more nuanced than you are making it out to be and the discussion around "what is open source" is where this discussion begins and ends. I'm not going to try and argue about what the author "wants", which, I agree with you, seems clear, but is not expressed fully, given the chosen unrestricted license.

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.
    - milkshakes 1y ago
      in fact, the author has chimed in and you still choose to argue with him. at this point i think it's clear that you aren't confused about his intent at all, you just don't care about it. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43865945 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43865945
      - lytedev 1y ago
        I never claimed confusion, but that there is more to "intent" here than what one page of documentation says. I think it's clear the author "desires" or "wants" folks to keep the images. However, I think the author also "wants" users to use the software without restriction, hence the license. If I say I intend one thing in one place, but then also say another thing orthogonal to that thing elsewhere that seems to be at odds, what was my intent truly? If my actions do not line up with my words, how do external parties judge what is the socially acceptable approach given my two statements that are at odds? I simply think the choice of license says a lot more about intent, and is, in fact, the mechanism by which a creator decides how their code may be used. If the author truly intends their software to be used a certain way, the license is _the_ way to have control over that. I believe this conversation is a bit more nuanced than you are making it out to be and the discussion around "what is open source" is where this discussion begins and ends. I'm not going to try and argue about what the author "wants", which, I agree with you, seems clear, but is not expressed fully, given the chosen unrestricted license.