And that contradicts my comment because ... ?
Liwott
joined 3 years ago
I got that, mine was a critic of copyleft in general. Maybe a bit out of place, but probably not more than your first snarky remark about copyleft on a post that doesn't say anything about fighting corporations.
MIT license is a great way of making sure corporations will take this and run away with it
Copying is not theft :) That they "run away with it" by using it for their own projects doesn't change anything to your use and development
Copyright 2019 Jason Yuan Design. All rights reserved.
not open source thought
Some streets are also so tight, a Tram or Monorail never fit trough such tight streets
but busses do?
Why do some people from United States still believe that their country is the greatest in the world?
OPs question is not about whether you can objectively define that a country is ‘’great’’
No, but its formulation seems to imply that there is such a definition, that the US obviously don't satisfy it but that a lot of americans mistakenly believe that it does.
Also, feels a bit strange that you address that response to the one comment (ok, one of the two ) that address that point rather than to any of the ones who assume that the US are objectively not a great country.
it’s Europe. Not exactly a bastion of freedom.
Life in Europe is pretty free imo. Except maybe for company managers who want to fire people for no good reason... How are the US more free?
At least here we can legally order beers at age 16, and spirits at age 18, that's a good part of the freedom my silly European mind needs :D
Certainly if more people agree with you, that means you’re correct.
Certainly if the US law says saw, that means you are correct... ~~If want~~ I was just bringing up the fact that using the law as a criterion in a moral discussion is a bit shady, as the law is not the same everywhere.
In fact randomly insulting someone on the street is not necessarily punishable (except if they are a public authority), but harassing people, or inciting other people to insult categories of people, like homophobic or racist propaganda, are punishable by law here. I don't really miss the freedom to create a openly racist club...
Nothing I’ve said should discourage you from doing so.
There is no action that is justified on your part. Taking action makes you more than intolerant, it makes you the criminal.
Taking action doesn't mean committing crime. Publicly calling out a bad behaviour and siding with the victim is taking action. Filing a complaint at the police station, or encouraging the victim to do so, is definitely taking action.
It is part of the gouvernment's mission to punish the formation of intolerant groups before threy become an actual threat to the safety of the people they are intolerant of.Indeed what you said
Not yet. But those who become upset when the “intolerant people” don’t stop what they’re doing, they usually get there sooner or later.
about the tolerance champions also apply to the intolerants.
If the government fails at this, then it's time to consider taking action against the government itself. Of course, this doesn't mean litterally shooting the sheriff or the deputy, first there's pacific demonstration, endorsing then voting for parties who plan to improve on that point. Actual rioting comes only if all that fails.
But someone calling you mean names? Even the really bad ones? It’s not a crime, and it’s not some intermediate state between the two.
It is actually a penal offense here in Belgium, and I wouldn't bet we are alone on this. But independently of that, if someone I know uses intolerant slurs I will call them out on it.
But you don’t get to preemptively do the same shit yourself under the theory that “they were going to do it first!”. And no, you’re not different since you’re doing it “for a good reason, unlike what they’d do”.
I said that the intolerant behaviours should be called out, I never said that anyone should kill anyone else. You call them out if it is safe enough, otherwise you call the police
Well, that’s why I didn’t name Firefox as a particularly good example of open-source, just a reference for the manpower needed.
Is there a good example of open-source web browser? For example, what do you use as a browser?
More generally, is there anything that passes you "hard fork" test for another reason than the scale effect? Is there any sign that the frustrated community members are more talented if the maintainer is hired by a non-profit rather than a private company?
Nah, I would just like it, if companies wouldn’t tout their projects being open-source, when that’s basically just misleading many users.
There is a precise definition of what is open source. If users think it encompasses more, that's a problem of communication from part of the open source community.
just letting the “open-source” term die and finding a better word
Do you really think there is no advantage of a program being open source? Don't you think it is a good thing that the online community can check the source code, fork it to remove the bits they don't like, install a previous version if they don't like the new one? Would you prefer if there was no open source Chromium, no ungoogled-chromium, no soft forks of it, so that one would need to run Chrome if they need to use an app developped for Chrome?
Do you exclusively use software that is designed by communities rather than companies?
If the “intolerant people” are committing no crimes and you leave them alone as they are leaving you alone, then how is this not ideal?
There are intermediate states between "committing crimes" and "leaving you alone". The intolerants may be misinforming other people to have them rally their cause until they are enough to democratically set up intolerant rules. Intolerant behaviours should always be called out so that they never become the norm.
Wouldn't "an evil company could use your product to make money" be an argument to never release anything for free?
Indeed, copyleft is not enough to guarantee that corporations won't make money with your code. Without modifying the code, an evil company could increase its profit just by using your software. So maybe the software should not be free but contain some clause that restricts to non-commercial use only? Maybe throw in some antifascist clause so that fascists groups cannot use your program to increase their efficiency in recruiting more members? Since evil people don't care about the law, maybe you should only distribute your software to people that you have personnally vetted? Add-in some cryptology so that they cannot distribute it to evil people themselves?
This never stops, it's the usual question of freedom vs security. Permissive licences are the ones who lie at the freedom-most part of the spectrum.
But mostly, this discussion about copyleft has nothing to do with the post.