“just open sourced someone else’s code ama” - a case study in fucking around and finding out - eviltoast
Jules :notnet: (@notnite@coolmathgam.es)
coolmathgam.es
just open sourced someone else's code ama https://github.com/jawslouis/MakePlacePlugin/pull/26

from the linked github thread:

Your project is in violation of the AGPL, and you have stated this is intentional and you have no plans to open source it. This is breaking the law, and as such I’ve began to help you with the first steps of re-open sourcing the plugin.

the project author (who gets paid for violating the AGPL via patreon) responds like a mediocre crypto grifter and insists their violation of the law be debated on the discord they control (where their shitty community can shout down the reporter):

While keeping code private doesn’t guarantee security, it does make it harder for bad actors to keep up with changes. You are welcome to debate this matter in the MakePlace discord: https://discord.com/invite/YuvcPzCuhq If you are able to convince the MakePlace community that keeping the code open-source is better, I will respect the wishes of the community.

aaaand the smackdown:

Respectfully, I won’t attempt to “debate” or “convince” anyone; I’m leaving this pull request and my fork here for others to see and use. It is not a matter of “better”; you are violating a software license and the law. It does not “make it harder” for anyone; Harmony hooking exists, IL modification exists, you can modify plugins from other plugins.

  • bitofhope@awful.systemsEnglish
    5·
    11 months ago

    Can I ask for elaboration? In the context of GPL and free software licenses in general, “strong” and “encumbered” tend to refer to roughly the same thing, i.e. conditions requiring that the work and derivative works to be also distributed as free software.

    Nothing in the license text of GPLv3 or GPLv2 reads to me like deliberate distancing from communism or anything else other than nonfree software. Do you have a different interpretation of the text or are you basing the claim on something else? Sure, RMS is not a socialist nor is the FSF a socialist organization, but I’m not aware of them “going far out of their way” to disproportionately emphasize the GPL’s noncommunism. OSI and ESR arguably have, given their more corporate focus and particularly ESR’s far right views. You also have to take into account that associating free software in general and GPL in particular with communism has been a deliberate smear tactic against them, so a lot of the ink spilled about the un-commieness of the GPL has been in response to its equally or more anti-communist opponents.

    Designing a truly communist software license that still makes sense in the capitalist context of international copyright law seems like an interesting exercise. I like that the GPL has a whole preamble to explain the intent and values behind its terms, and that it manages to essentially invert what would normally be an exclusive privilege granted by copyright into a communal obligation enforced via the same. A communist equivalent would be something like exploiting property rights to ensure that some capital asset remains de facto collectively owned.

    I think the (A)GPL manages to implement some radical and admirable principles while acknowledging that we live in a society [bottom text]. Even if the software licensing interests of some libertarian pedophiles happen to sometimes align with mine and what I consider the common good, they don’t get to claim the license as theirs any more that I get to declare it to support my ideology.