mirabilos

12 ms·

1.
by mirabilos 9y ago
There is still quite some amount of hubris in this. If A writes software under L0 and gives it to B and is “nice enough” to allow B to use it privately for free, there’s some entitlement to the software., You’re overlooking that, in a conte
2.
by mirabilos 9y ago
It’s misleading because it pretends that you need zero licences for it.
3.
by mirabilos 9y ago
Nor is it Ⓕ Copyfree compatible, and none of the BSDs would ever touch it either. So that leaves you with adaption by unwashed unorganised masses who wouldn’t care about licence terms at all.
4.
by mirabilos 9y ago
Just find something that brings bread on the table. Doesn’t even have to be software-related, could be, idfk, gardening.
5.
by mirabilos 9y ago
Eh, you can use a fixed-width font in GUI apps, too. In Kontact, for example, you just press “x”. FixedMisc is still the best font
6.
by mirabilos 9y ago
meh, give me ed over vi and emacs any day “modern” seems to be a curse word these days, all the time I find it being used it’s used to describe something despicable like the systemd ecosystem.
7.
by mirabilos 9y ago
Slack? Ugh. When my employer turned off the company-internal Jabber server in favour of, out of all things, Hipchat, I moved my team mates to IRC. (They also seem to all know at least some vi, even the trainee.)
8.
by mirabilos 10y ago
I am the author. And I am not an academic interested in bringing out a lengthy article with explaining the interpretations and all. I am, in this instance, pragmatic: explaining what’s bad, why it’s bad, what we need to do right now, and
9.
by mirabilos 10y ago
Sorry about that, I was more concerned with getting the explanation into more than 140 chars and out to both people and GitHub and getting in touch with GitHub than with writing a lengthy article. And all this besides $dayjob which suffered
10.
by mirabilos 10y ago
The licence per se is not disallowed. If you create a work from scratch and decide to put it under GPL and upload it to GitHub (thus granting extra rights), that’s just fine. It’s only you cannot currently upload SOMEONE ELSE’s GPL’d work (
11.
by mirabilos 10y ago
True. But CC0 is deprecated by CC themselves and CC requested the OSI to not approve it. It is unclear whether there will be a successor. But any of the BSD/MIT-ish licences should be close enough to a “gift” for this to work (well
12.
by mirabilos 10y ago
“how these rules came to be and what they try to achieve” That’s not my point here. The intent behind the rules and what they’re trying to achieve is GOOD and A STEP UP from the previous ToS. HOWEVER, they have language that IS problematic
13.
by mirabilos 10y ago
As things are right now: yes, especially for GPL works, “probably not” for BSD or MIT works. I _am_ working with them to get it fixed, but they enacted the new terms prematurely, so _currently_ the mess is there.
14.
by mirabilos 10y ago
This just shows that two lawyers did not even read my article and just comment on it demeaningly. Please do note that D.5 also covers “reproduce”, which _is_ “distribution of code”, _and_ that I address this point in my article. So, in shor
15.
by mirabilos 10y ago
Someone intelligently (hah) decided to link to the (1 MiB) page with the entire wlog posts of the last decade (plus CSS, webfonts, …) instead of to the permalink of the one article (15K), and then over https. The webserver is a first-gene
16.
by mirabilos 10y ago
But, thanks to the new ToS becoming effective immediately (as of 28½ hours ago), you do have to act . Basically, starting March 2017, uploading anything (new) like that is not allowed. Removing repositories and/or the entire use
17.
by mirabilos 10y ago
BSD/MIT/etc. only require the licence text to be present, usually by retaining it in the source code or accompanying documentation. Yes, it’s close. No, I don’t want to go there and discuss this detail.
18.
by mirabilos 10y ago
Github doesn’t, it just requires that of its users (that, or to not upload any copylefted works, or works under licences requiring attribution, which contain work from people who have not agreed to waive those requirements for Github).
19.
by mirabilos 10y ago
Both the AGPL (“anciliary transmission”) and the law have exceptions for ISPs and other such scenarios.
20.
by mirabilos 10y ago
Yes, that’s actually what GitHub and I are talking about now. Any OSS licence already grants way enough rights for a hosting platform to operate, period. Anything else can be solved technically and does not need to involve legalities. (For
21.
by mirabilos 10y ago
They actually had a review period, and did some good changes. But then, they took a week to look at the reviews (ostensibly; I, as well as others, never got any response to them), went and made some minor changes (which were not enough to a
22.
by mirabilos 10y ago
No, don’t use JIRA for developing OSS: https://mako.cc/copyrighteous/free-software-needs-free-tools
23.
by mirabilos 10y ago
I’m in contact with them, as I wrote in the updated post.
24.
by mirabilos 10y ago
Yes.
25.
by mirabilos 10y ago
Any OSS licence fulfils the requirements EXCEPT for GitHub’s requirement to not add any requirements to the grant. See my updated post.
26.
by mirabilos 10y ago
just ssh, git and gitweb will do. Or self-hosted FusionForge if you need more fancy stuff.
27.
by mirabilos 10y ago
As far as I can tell: no, unless GitHub takes taking excerpts from works too far and redistributing them without the licence attached. But nobody else is allowed to deal in those excerpts then, except via the original licence, so, likely no
28.
by mirabilos 10y ago
Interestingly enough, this _might_ apply to paid repositories unless you pay for having different ToS apply to you.
29.
by mirabilos 10y ago
The plain body text is under The MirOS Licence, so that’s fine. For more, see http://www.mirbsd.org/LICENCE
30.
by mirabilos 10y ago
Thanks, it was indeed a bit of load I updated the article in the meanwhile since I am in contact with people at GitHub, trying to convince them to change things to the better ;) http://sprunge.us/TCaI is a mirror, in case m

More ›