Email or username:

Password:

Forgot your password?
lnl's posts Post Back to profile
lnl

copyright, same as patents, is not a way through which you can make anything better. any clauses against freedom 0 do more harm than good. and any clauses against freedom 0 can and will backfire against you and what you very intended them to do.

like good fucking luck fighting in court over, say, a contributor arguing that calling someone "bi lesbian" is "homophobic", and therefore prohibited under OQL-1.1.

on the other hand good luck arguing in court that Bogus Holding B.V., a company with no employees and capital of 10 EUR is actually Global Tetrahedron, Inc., a military contractor, and therefore violating OQL-1.1.

meanwhile you've prevented everyone else from reusing some parts of your code under a free software license, almost every Linux distro from ever packaging your software, maintainers of any derivatives from hosting them on Codeberg, ...

17 August at 21:16 | Open on screaminginsi.de
16 comments | Expand all CWs
alice
@lnl mfs be like hot take when the hot refers to the temperature of the espresso immediately before it gets dumped over ice cubes and turnt into an iced coffee

also yea
17 August at 21:47 | Open on outerheaven.club
demented goldfish eevee fox cat

@lnl my stance on licensing is “steal my bad code if you want but like please mention me somewhere at least and we gucci” and anything beyond “also keep your thing open source” is almost always unreasonable

17 August at 22:03 | Open on labyrinth.zone
Niko :neofox_flag_nb_256: :neofox_flag_trans_256:

@lnl the OQL just seems like a massive land mine and i just stay away from any projects using it these days

17 August at 22:06 | Open on furry.engineer
Justin FItzsimmons

@lnl what's the OQL? Search only brings up results for different acronyms that start with O 😵

17 August at 22:30 | Open on l3ib.org
Ryan Castellucci :nonbinary_flag:

@lnl I remember at least 15 years ago calling someone a clown to their face for "oh, we should just write into software licenses 'you can't use this if you support torture'".

These licenses boils down to "nobody serious can use your code". If that's what someone wants, fine, but they're delusional if they think it's changing anything.

17 August at 22:46 | Open on infosec.exchange
Antonia :westfalentarif:

@lnl there have been few movements so dead on arrival as ethical source. I mean, this idea has been tried many times over the past three decades, yet they have achieved nothing but license proliferation on a level previously not thought possible.

18 August at 5:35 | Open on zug.network
lnl

@antonia why didn't anyone simply think of this? *creates new license*

18 August at 6:03 | Open on screaminginsi.de
Antonia :westfalentarif:
Useliss Lisbian :sparkles_trans:

@antonia @lnl adds the hypocritic liecence to that in the hopes that no one will notice

18 August at 6:36 | Open on estrogen.network
Antonia :westfalentarif:

@lnl and don't get me started on the mindblowingly problematic license clauses

18 August at 6:49 | Open on zug.network
asie

@lnl@screaminginsi.de while I broadly agree with your point, there's some important addendums in my opinion:

a) another issue with "moral" licensing is that you're quickly going to open the can of worms of interpretation and incompatibilities if you try to respect it. we, as a sum of all humans participating in society, can't even agree on what "racism" means and doesn't mean. for another example, some "moral" licenses ban government institutions broadly, others limit themselves to military contractors and law enforcement in specific. but even with the OQL as brought up, am I allowed to use the work as an university employee, or potentially an academic? most universities are in bed with the MIC to some extent, after all. as these proliferate, the issue of "you need to respect the sum total of all licenses that comprise a work" can only get trickier.

b) while it's important to remember the de facto outcomes of choosing a given license - they are legal documents - i think it's also important to point out that a shocking number of people don't care about their work being used widely, and in their case there's no real downside to using a license as a political statement.

c) this isn't even particularly new discourse. Douglas Crockford was doing "moral licensing" as early as 2002, as shown in this somewhat humorous talk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hCimLnIsDA ; but in the end, JSHint - a fork of JSLint - put in great effort to relicense to MIT/Expat in 2020.

@lnl@screaminginsi.de while I broadly agree with your point, there's some important addendums in my opinion:

a) another issue with "moral" licensing is that you're quickly going to open the can of worms of interpretation and incompatibilities if you try to respect it. we, as a sum of all humans participating in society, can't even agree on what "racism" means and doesn't mean. for another example, some "moral" licenses ban government institutions broadly, others limit themselves to military contractors...

18 August at 7:51 | Open on mk.asie.pl
Haelwenn /элвэн/ :triskell:
@lnl Those licences always reminds me of how I discovered the "Anticapitalist" License: On a GitHub project. (Meaning you can't legally send a PR if you're not the original author, can't grant any usage to GitHub)
18 August at 9:46 | Open on queer.hacktivis.me
DELETED
Go Up