🎓 Dr. Freemo 🇳🇱 @freemo@social.cleverlibre.org

@Faket

What do you mean like the USA, you have any idea how many wars we are and have continuously been in?

That I know of the USA has been consistently involved in at least one war since the 1800s to today. Late 1800's is the last time I can come up with where I cant find any evidence of us being in a war of somekind.

@emilis @SteveTheDragon

@Faket

Some people, particularly on the internet, really struggle with being able to engage someone respectfully when they disagree with them. Its a shame, prevents a lot of productive conversations that might yield something useful otherwise.

@emilis @SteveTheDragon

@Faket

All good, I respect that. Like i said we were only disagreeing on definition anyway, which really isnt a very important disagreement. What you call a thing isnt as important as what you think works or doesnt or why and other insights.

@SteveTheDragon

@frank87

Not sure where you think anything in that link disagreed with me or agrees with you, other than perhaps the non-lawyer authors opinions. But certainly the case he cited does not.

@SteveTheDragon

@frank87

Copyright **is** ownership, its just a more specific technical term for ownership of a specific class of things... when someone says "I own this code" they mean (and rightfully so) "I own the copyright on this code" copyright **is** ownership.

@SteveTheDragon

@Faket

Well regardless we are disagreeing on definitions, so its not a particularly important point who is right anyway.

@SteveTheDragon

@frank87

well no I live in both the netherlands and the USA, so depends where im at which law im under. But thats not the point.

And yea, its pretty different in other countries. I still havent heard you explain how car rental could be possible if it werent the case in other countries that control does not determine ownership.

@SteveTheDragon

@q

No instead he looks like a fucking moron who is easily discounted and ignored, just like im doing right now.

@Atlas @nubigo @akeno

@frank87

Ahh you were talking about a dutch case..

@SteveTheDragon

@Wetrix

Who doesnt know about the butt hole pecking canadian geese... clearly you arent getting all your memos!

@mur2501

@q

I've actually been a pretty vocal opponent of the vaccine. Just not with this idiot dumbass shit. There are **plenty** of reasons to be critical of the vaccine. But the people in this thread have crossed over from informed and critical to just rambling nut jobs.

@Atlas @nubigo @akeno

@Wetrix

LOL I think he is confusing EU and european :)

@mur2501

@frank87

No you can have the monopoly. mysql is an example of that. They require everyone who contributes to their particular fork sign over their copyright to have their contributions considered for inclusion. This allows the company to have the mononopoly, they are the **only** ones permitted to change the code base and release it totally closed source and sell it. No one else in the general public has that permission. so they clearly hold the monopoly on those rights.

same is true for individual developers who release their code under open source, they retain the right of the original copyright and the ability to close source variants of the code that the general public is not permitted to to, thus the original author also owns a monopoly on those rights.

@SteveTheDragon

@frank87

> A few years ago there was a lawsuit about theft of weapons in MMRORPG. And yes the exclusive ability to control the objects was a mayor part of being a possession.

Please show me the specific legal decision and original wording that reflects this assertion. I'd be happy to consider it.

It seems to me your just getting it backwards. If you legally possess something the law gives you some level of control over it. It does not however mean you must prove you have control over something in order to own it or that loosing such control means you no longer own it.

I gave several such examples to that point, renting a car being a good one. The owner keeps legal ownership and therefore from the law (not the other way around) has a right to control that car in certain limited ways (such as recall it to their possession)... but by renting out that car they give away far more control than they retain. The person they rent to decides where it goes, when it goes there, what route it takes, pretty much has complete control over the car for the time of that rental. Yet the owner does not loose ownership simply because they give away control.

@SteveTheDragon

@Faket

Sorry you were insulted, I do not approve of that.

It sounds like you are describing libertarianism (local government has all the power, federal governments dont exist other than as a coalition and is voluntary)... libertarianism isnt anarchism, it sounds like your just mixing up terms.

> So, are free license like GPL, MIT ok?

Are you asking me what is "ok" as in, a good thing to have, or what is compatible with various forms of economics and governments, they are two very different things.

Anarchism doesnt dictate what is ok or what isnt.. It just garuntees no one will ever be coerced into doing anything they dont want to and can never force someone to do something they dont want to. Everything else is free game.

So from an anarchism perspective open source licneses cant exist regardless if they are "ok" or not, because they coerce people to follow the terms of the license.

> Without them people could use the code and make them proprietary, which would coerce users.

how would that coerce users? They couldnt make it propritary in the typical sense under an anarchism either. In other words, they could not render an EULA that said "you are not allowed to make copies of this and give it away".. such an EULA could not exist in an anarchism anymore than an open-source license could.

What a programmer **can** do in an anarchism however is compile their software, never distribute the source code in the first place, and add DRM to their software so if a user tried to give the software away for free they would find they would be unable to. They can then charge people for it. THAT would be compatible with anarchism since no one is being coerced, I am simply offering to sell you some bytes that you would have a hard time redistributing, your welcome to try, but im welcome to put in measures to prevent you...

So it would effectively be proprietary, but again not the form your used to seeing, and not enforced by license.

@SteveTheDragon

@Faket

No where in the statement you just quoted did I claim it was "no rules"...

Anarchism by definition means that it is not permitted for a hierarchy to exist in which an individual can be coerced to do or not do anything they do not want. That is the defining quality of anarchism. To quote wikipedia on the definition of anarchism:

> Anarchism is a political philosophy and movement that is sceptical of authority and rejects all involuntary, coercive forms of hierarchy.

So that means rules are allowed, but **only** rules that outlaw one person coercing another in some way. It is this reason murder can be illegal in an anarchism (it is a rule), because murder is the ultimate coercion of someone (you are forcing someone to be dead who doesnt want to be).

By this fundemental definition of anarchism, however, it also means that you can not issue licenses for yoursoftware as doing so would coerce the users of that software to have to following your rules, creating the two things anarchism is against: a hierarchy (you as the rule maker) and coercion (the terms of the license).

Therefore in an anarchism a person would be well within their rights to ignore any open-source license and use the software however they please, so long as they dont use it to coerce other people.

@SteveTheDragon

@Faket

Why are you using quote marks. No one said that (other than you just now).

@SteveTheDragon

@Zawlwinoo hi there

The mystery is finally solved, the fediverse is mostly filled with cats!

@funny #cats #cat #funny #joke #humor #humour

@maheshmanish This feels a bit spammy.. your first post is to a link you personally profit from? If you were already an active contributor it might not be an issue but this looks like its against our rules, unless you'd like to try making a new first post?