• 4 Posts
  • 758 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: February 1st, 2024

help-circle









  • AGPL, along with all code contributed having copyright attributed to the project is the only true way. this is because MIT allows companies to internalize projects and completely co-op them.

    The important detail of making this work is creating secondary commercial licenses which companies can use in order not to reveal or contribute code back. this provides a mechanism for open source projects to make money, while protecting the end users. which have come to depend on it, or which may have contributed to it as an author. this need is why the copyright attribution to the project is necessary for all contributions.

    I cannot understand why this is not a more commonly chosen path. it really strikes the perfect balance between allowing companies to use code in whatever way they might need to (as long as they are willing to pay for it), creating support for open source projects, and preventing and shitification of successful open source projects which users support.

    importantly, any such commercial license is offered should include prohibitions against re-implementation, as well as time limits so that the software cannot continue to be used indefinitely if an unanticipated but non-breaching use creates risk to the original project






  • TramorttoPolitical humor@sh.itjust.worksSemantic Is Pedantic
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 months ago

    the logic is simple, but you are ignoring it.

    you are providing examples where language is consistent with an algebraic formulation, and ignoring examples where it clearly is not.

    if examples of both exist, then you plainly cannot treat language like algebra, because it’s not always correct.

    you only need one counter-example to disprove a thesis. instead of discussing the counter examples provided, you think that providing more examples of consistency contributed to the conversation.

    sorry, but they don’t. that’s not how logic works.



  • TramorttoPolitical humor@sh.itjust.worksSemantic Is Pedantic
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    2 months ago

    the op post is correct: being anti-anti-X is not the same thing as pro-x

    try this:

    Christopher is an anti-theist: he actively believes that all gods and theologies are stupid and wrong, and that God does not exist.

    John is an anti-anti-theist.

    does that mean that John MUST be a theist?

    no.

    thankfully we didn’t need linguistic games to recognize Trump as a fascist: his actions make him what he is, regardless of his position on antifa.