Foss guys when Gabe Newell releases a computer: 🫦🫦🫦🫦🫦🫦

@lain i will forever shill valve

@lain

@lain "However, if you're going to use these games, you're better off using them on GNU/Linux rather than on Microsoft Windows. At least you avoid the harm to your freedom that Windows would do.

Thus, in direct practical terms, this development can do both harm and good. It might encourage GNU/Linux users to install these games, and it might encourage users of the games to replace Windows with GNU/Linux. My guess is that the direct good effect will be bigger than the direct harm"

@hfaust stallman’s attitude towards games is nonsensical and it all comes from his initial error of accepting the concept of “intellectual property”.

@lain @hfaust I prefer the far more fruitful concept of "piracy"

@bartholin @hfaust it’s the same picture

@lain I just want a libre version of Bunny Garden

@hfaust @lain
>My guess is that the direct good effect will be bigger than the direct harm"
RMS isn't aware/overestimates the gaming community. They'll bend progressively to the point the system will just become a windows clone.
It's only proper to migrate if you're conscious of the double edge sword the issue is, and that you do what you can to finance/request software freedom even for entertainment software.

@lain @hfaust I thought he was against the term IP? I read an article on GNU that was to that effect

@bartholin @lain @hfaust
>use a non authorize copy of proprietary software
>it has a backdoor calls home sells you data and exploit your hardware for bonets
>use an authorize copy of proprietary software
>it has a backdoor calls home sells you data and exploit your hardware for bonets
The only way to win is to not play.

@georgia @hfaust he might be against the term but the whole idea of copyleft is based on forcing other people to handle their copies of your code the way that you tell them to via IP law.

@lain @hfaust He is does accept the concept of “intellectual property” and is very outspoken about that every time someone mentions it.

@lain @hfaust of course he accept and support concept of "intellectual property", copyleft exists on same grounds as copyright - same laws to forbid copying, same laws to maintain copying.

if you abolish IP/copyright everyone is free to take proprietary software but also everyone is free to violate GPL
3736ca56837ff780f8fe84e2cbd141e…

@SuperDicq @hfaust that’s where he goes wrong, even if he of course did (and still does) a lot of good

@lain @hfaust yea true

@lain @hfaust doesn’t*, sorry about the typo. To clarify he does not. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html

@lain @georgia @hfaust Yes and that's because if you do nothing then all is defacto under IP laws that makes everything proprietary from the start thanks to the Bern convention, which he protests.

@SuperDicq @hfaust okay but copyleft doesn’t work without IP. If your GNU code isn’t your property, you can’t stop me from not sharing it.

@mangeurdenuage @georgia @hfaust you can put your code into the public domain or give everyone a license for your code as if IP didn’t exist, that’s not what he does .

@lain @hfaust I recommend you read the article.

The point is that intellectual property isn’t real. Being the copyright holder of something is not the same as owning any sort of property.

@hj @lain @hfaust
>if you abolish IP/copyright everyone is free to take proprietary software
Then that would mean there's no more definition of what is proprietary or copyleft. Just people exchanging stuff between them without limit. And only if there's an established contract between parties then there will be defined what you cannot or do with the software.
The GPL does that. It brings back what was lost before the bern convention by using the bern convention.

@mangeurdenuage @hj @hfaust the natural state of the world is unlimited copying and using your copy in which ever way you see fit

@mangeurdenuage @lain @hfaust point being that not everyone will share everything - closest example is chinese copying someone else's PCB and scratching off chips identification so other people can't copy theirs

@SuperDicq @lain @hfaust Yeah, but it's more like "Copyright, Trademark, Patents are very different laws, and putting them all together is a problem", specially if you're say against software patents (like most of FOSS world is).

Plus the fact that they do not work like property, like abandonware would be 100% legal instead of "illegal but unlikely to get sued" if it truly would work like property.

@SuperDicq @hfaust it’s the same, that’s why he thinks that if I add a line of code to emacs and share the result with you on here, I’ll have to share it with everyone.

@lain @georgia @hfaust
>that’s not what he does .
Human commerce/mind isn't adapted to digital tools.
The GPL is properly adapted to bring similar behavior of what you'd have with physical tools but for digital tools.

@lain @SuperDicq @hfaust i think you can keep it private as long as you don't share it at all

@hj @lain @hfaust
>if you abolish IP/copyright everyone is free to take proprietary software but also everyone is free to violate GPL
Or in more proper terms, everybody is free to make truly free as in freedom software with no way of putting restrictions on how you get it or use it.

@lain @hfaust @mangeurdenuage hell yeah anarchy 🏴‍☠️
1f2d9aaf4e9de3e90e9e212c056e78b…

@lain @SuperDicq @hfaust Nope, otherwise it wouldn't be in Debian: https://wiki.debian.org/DissidentTest

@lain @hfaust And yes copyleft is a copyright hack. Copyleft by itself is not the end goal of the free software movement, but just a tool that helps achieve that.

In the perfect world, copyright, and thus also copyleft, would not need to exist.

Ideally everyone would simply find nonfree software unethical and nobody would use it. Therefor nobody would try to publish nonfree software in the first place.

Or alternatively, we would make a law that states that all published software should include its source code by default, outside of the domain of a copyright license. As a society we could consider nonfree software as malicious and ban the practice altogether.

@hj @lain @hfaust
> not everyone will share everything
Yeah that's ok.

>closest example is chinese copying someone else's PCB and scratching off chips identification so other people can't copy theirs
That's not commerce then. It's grifting and people doing so should be removed form society.

@phnt @lain @hfaust ironically maybe not. Everyone would also be free to hunt down and blackmail whomever copied their stuff, even if their stuff is copy of someone else, or not even theirs to begin with.

it's like bullying whomever wrote slash fic with your favorite cartoon's characters who aren't your OTP

@lain @hj @hfaust Indeed.

@SuperDicq @hfaust that’s IP. You say you don’t want IP and then you say “here are the rules that you can share software under”

@mangeurdenuage @lain @hfaust >That's not commerce then. It's grifting and people doing so should be removed form society.

agree but there would be no law to enforce it, just terrorism, and it works both ways. anarchy is nice on paper until someone with bigger guns shows up to threaten your freedom

@lain @hfaust That’s a gross misrepresentation of the GPL’s copyleft.

You are not required to make your changes to GPL-licensed public.

All you to do is make sure that all the users of your program has access to the source code. You’re not required to give the source code to anyone else.

@hj @lain @hfaust Anarchy, just like matriarchal ruling, they have never worked or only for such a short period of time that almost no history of them subsist.

@hj @lain @SuperDicq @hfaust You can keep it completely private as long as someone doesn't come knocking on lain's door and asking for the source. That's the loophole AGPL prevents by saying that if you modify something and put it online, you have to share the source in the same way. Or something like that.

@hj @lain @hfaust You only have to share the source code with the people you also share the program with, you don’t have to make anything public.

If you share the program with only one person, you only have to give the source code to one person.

@SuperDicq @lain @hfaust point being that you HAVE TO. I can't share just binary with a friend, i HAVE TO include sources even if he doesn't ask for them.

as far as i know, i'm no suiseiseki.
9777903ae03ecf3244ab8629cde03b8…

@lain @SuperDicq @hfaust
> You say you don’t want IP and then you say “here are the rules that you can share software under”
But you do because if you aren't smart then you get nowhere.

@hj @lain @hfaust On request is fine. They just need access to it when they request it.

@mangeurdenuage @lain @hfaust the only remotely good government structure is status quo ["you're in the army now" starts playing]

it all depends on people in ruling class and i guess the people being ruled.

and i guess who has more guns
46715993800d61dd39ec6b230b843ae…

@lain @hfaust Rules don’t have anything to do with property. There are many rules associated with things that aren’t property.

@SuperDicq @lain @hfaust
>All you to do is make sure that all the users of your program has access to the source code. You're not required to give the source code to anyone else.
I'll add and that's only if they request it.
You're also free to be a huge dick and send it in any format you want.
Like paper, which happened once and the company who did it regretted trying to be bullies.

@hj @lain @hfaust Not really, lack of copyright and IP laws would make it so that you can't own a piece of software (or anything non-tangible for that matter). You can't hunt down or blackmail someone for copying your work, because you don't own the work and can't impose any restrictions on who uses your software and how. Essentially what public domain means now. Trying to blackmail in this case would still be the same blackmailing as the law already recognizes.

Unless you are in full anarchy that is, which is something I didn't suggest. But that's off-topic.

@phnt @lain @SuperDicq @hj @hfaust
>That's the loophole AGPL prevents by saying that if you modify something and put it online, you have to share the source in the same way. Or something like that.
The AGPL prevents if you host a service with AGPL code to fuck over your customer and not provide the configuration to replicate the service if needed.
That's why it's the only license that auto requires you to share immediately the source code and config from the start.
That's why fangman are staying far away from it as if it was penicillin.

@lain @SuperDicq @hfaust also is the GPL a license or a contract. It can't be both. And licenses cannot be revoked, soooo

@hj @lain @hfaust But nevertheless it is always a good thing include the source code with the binary. Having to request the source code is inconvenient

But is technically allowed and some organizations that distribute GPL-licensed software only give out the source code on request in this manner.

@phnt @lain @hfaust i always feel like lack of IP/copyright would mean complete anarchy. Worst comes to worse they start adding even more DRM just to couteract this IP anarchy since there's no enforcement against including DRM in your public domain stuff, like old floppy games with DRM in them

@hj @lain @hfaust
>good government structure
Has highlighted by many people over time what's important is that the population can exchange with each other and defend themselves.

@feld @SuperDicq @hfaust I would be fine with it as a contract

the logic is weaponizing something he disagrees with to fight against a system built around it, right? that's always been my understanding of the gpls purpose

@Alex Yeah, in true hacker culture fashion, it’s fair to say to call copyleft a hack on copyright.

@phnt @lain @hj @hfaust Total incorrect.

Even without copyright law, it is trivial to render software proprietary by providing binaries without the source code.

Even in cases where the software can't be used without the complete corresponding source code, companies worked out how to make software proprietary before copyright applied to software, by demanding the signing of a non-disclosure agreement before source code was provided.

@phnt @lain @SuperDicq @hj @hfaust The AGPLv3 gives permission to modify the software only if those who connect to it over a computer network are offered the modified source code.

You can make the service not be publicly available and require an account login and only offer the source code to those with an account login.

@hj @lain @SuperDicq @hfaust Following the {A}GPLv3, you can just share object code with a friend - such object code just needs to be distributed with a written offer for the source code - whether that already came with the software, or you need to add one (otherwise well it's not free software is it?).

Regardless - nobody cares unless you're doing proprietary things - if the friend is made aware that he just needs to ask for the source code to get it - that's fine.

@Suiseiseki @lain @SuperDicq @hfaust i really appreciate you chipping in because you know your shit really well
6de4fe0440884c19fab788b857765e6…

@Suiseiseki @phnt @lain @hj @hfaust copyright is not only about software. If there is a book or song, without copyright I can copy it and even modify it without the original manuscript (for music it’s a bit harder)

@mirari @phnt @lain @hj @hfaust Yes, but the topic was about software.

As a book at its core is just text and music is at its core just a sound wave - the user is not effectively technically prevented from editing book text, or editing music - although it is still illegal to make modifications to books and music that don't fall under fair use (although that doesn't exist in many countries).

If books and music were no longer restricted by copyright, everyone could enjoy freedom with such information (music would at most lose some quality and be slightly inconvenient in the case of not having the master format).

The issue with software is that compilation throws away all the comments and formatting and optimizations makes the object code nigh unreadable and almost impossible to make nontrivial changes to it - meaning that object code without the source code in the public domain is still proprietary software.

At least the object code not being restricted by copyright would allow it to be decompiled, reverse-engineered and cleared up with comments added - but such process might be harder than just re-implementing the software from scratch.

@phnt @lain @hj @hfaust You can still own the user with proprietary malware that the user doesn't control - even if such software doesn't fall under copyright.

For example, proprietary malware can spy on the user and make sure they aren't doing unwanted copying - with observations likely to be useful for blackmail.

@feld @lain @SuperDicq @hfaust A court concluded that some GPL version is both a license and a contract.

Licenses are indeed revocable - although many countries place conditions on such.

The GPL family of licenses are irrevocable provided the license is followed - but the GPLv2 automatically terminates the license forever if the conditions are infringed and the GPLv3 on infringement gives a recovery period in which the violation can be cured (although the copyright holder(s) can instead choose to terminate the license).

@hj @phnt @lain @hfaust Imaginary property never existed and a lack of copyright would result in only a few negative results and primarily positive results.

Companies always add digital handcuffs regardless of the situation.

Bypassing the digital handcuffs on ancient floppy games is illegal due to the DCMA, although unlike to be prosecuted.

@Suiseiseki @phnt @lain @hfaust >Bypassing the digital handcuffs on ancient floppy games is illegal due to the DCMA, although unlike to be prosecuted.

this game is for sale and use in japan only. violators will be prosecuted to the full extend of the jam

@lain @SuperDicq @hfaust It's also not *necessary* without copyright & patent laws enclosing knowledge and rotting out culture.

(There should be no legal protections on trade secrets. The only protection should be having adequate opsec. No opsec, sucks to be you. Not society's problem.)

Copyleft or rather the GPL (or some explicit notification of the four laws) becomes a statement of intent and social expectation absent copyright.

Then one can further go on to liberate code that hasn't been properly released.

@hj @Suiseiseki @lain @hfaust
Mmm, 🍓jam

@Suiseiseki @lain @hj @hfaust But I can modify crack, reverse engineer and distribute the software however I want. Or even legally steal the source code if I get access to it. "Proprietary" does not exist in that world.

@Suiseiseki @lain @hj @hfaust DMCA is based on copyright and intellectual property. Which would be null and void.

@phnt @Suiseiseki @lain @hfaust either proprietary doesn't exist or everything is proprietary, it's a division by zero singularity