Proposal: Content DB should only accept FOSS

sofar
Developer
 
Posts: 2059
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2015 07:31
GitHub: sofar
IRC: sofar
In-game: sofar

Re: Proposal: Content DB should only accept FOSS

by sofar » Sun Nov 04, 2018 18:43

Wuzzy wrote:
Please note that everyone in the world can use NC software. Not a single living person is prohibited from using software that has this clause.

False.


No, entirely true. Just leave the work office, go home, and enjoy using NC software in your private residence. Legally, without further restrictions.

Every human being can move out of a commercial environment and to a personal environment and enjoy the legal use of software licensed NC for personal use. What is so hard to understand about that?
 

User avatar
Chiantos
Member
 
Posts: 369
Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2017 09:04
Location: Earth
IRC: mrchiantos
In-game: mrchiantos

Re: Proposal: Content DB should only accept FOSS

by Chiantos » Sun Nov 04, 2018 19:01

SLL : Sofar LMD License (No Modify , No Commercial) = CC BY SA ND NC

Coming soon in Cdb ? Very very open and Free license ... ;) ... Very Foss .... Hahaha.
BlockColor : Website - Discord - Reddit
 

Sires
Member
 
Posts: 186
Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2017 21:00
Location: :noitacoL
GitHub: Sires0
IRC: Sires
In-game: Sires Sores Siri Seris or anything ppl call me

Re: Proposal: Content DB should only accept FOSS

by Sires » Sun Nov 04, 2018 19:13

Chiantos wrote:SLL : Sofar LMD License (No Modify , No Commercial) = CC BY SA ND NC

Coming soon in Cdb ? Very very open and Free license ... ;) ... Very Foss .... Hahaha.



LOL I gotta admit I laughed at this one. But please, sofar is a very nice developer, you should have some more respect for him, it's just his opinion after all.
I don't have anything important to say.
 

User avatar
LMD
Member
 
Posts: 783
Joined: Sat Apr 08, 2017 08:16
Location: Germany
GitHub: appgurueu
In-game: LMD + PRO_LMD + Limo

Re: Proposal: Content DB should only accept FOSS

by LMD » Sun Nov 04, 2018 19:16

Well you somehow forgot that I need to be respect too, although I'm not a core dev, but basically I agree xD
 

Sires
Member
 
Posts: 186
Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2017 21:00
Location: :noitacoL
GitHub: Sires0
IRC: Sires
In-game: Sires Sores Siri Seris or anything ppl call me

Re: Proposal: Content DB should only accept FOSS

by Sires » Sun Nov 04, 2018 19:21

¯\_(ツ)_/¯¯ didn't see ya there
I don't have anything important to say.
 

sofar
Developer
 
Posts: 2059
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2015 07:31
GitHub: sofar
IRC: sofar
In-game: sofar

Re: Proposal: Content DB should only accept FOSS

by sofar » Sun Nov 04, 2018 19:58

Chiantos wrote:SLL : Sofar LMD License (No Modify , No Commercial) = CC BY SA ND NC


I absolutely do not agree with 'ND' being called open source. I even have a hard time calling it "free software" without twitching.

Moreover, for the purpose of THIS thread, and getting back on topic:

I completely support Wuzzy's proposal for the content DB to ONLY support "Open Source" as defined by OSI.

So before you think I'm a lunatic, remember that when it comes to practical manners, Wuzzy and me agree on mostly everything (we just like to argument into absurdisms and take, surprisingly often, opposing viewpoints ;))
 

User avatar
LMD
Member
 
Posts: 783
Joined: Sat Apr 08, 2017 08:16
Location: Germany
GitHub: appgurueu
In-game: LMD + PRO_LMD + Limo

Re: Proposal: Content DB should only accept FOSS

by LMD » Sun Nov 04, 2018 20:18

I also like to take opposing viewpoints.

But I think the CDB should also - as THE main content database for MT - accept "unfree" content.
It would even be okay if you put a warning over such content.
But I feel entirely banning it is not the right way.

Remember the devs of ND software have their reasons for using this license and have also spent time into the making of their content.

An entire subgame has already been lost to the visibility of this community due to license battles.
As well as other content.

So, may it only be a VERY tiny fraction, it's simply not that nice to ban work - which is, in fact - still being given out for NOTHING.

But I (now) have come to the conclusion that placing a well-visible warning is necessary then. Else modders could get into bad situations - like forking some content which they may not fork, and accordingly having to take their fork down.

Also, some supporters of ND believe that allowing forks is a good idea, but have worries concerning appropriate crediting. So they think it is best if somebody needs their explicit allowance to release a modifiyed version of your content.

Take a look at KGM's guards mod :
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=17483
zorman2000 politely asked whether he may fork it and everything worked perfect.

BTW : Nice how this important thread just got revived :D
 

User avatar
TumeniNodes
Member
 
Posts: 2794
Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2016 19:49
Location: in the dark recesses of the mind
GitHub: TumeniNodes
IRC: tumeninodes
In-game: TumeniNodes

Re: Proposal: Content DB should only accept FOSS

by TumeniNodes » Mon Nov 05, 2018 02:33

LMD wrote:Remember the devs of ND software have their reasons for using this license and have also spent time into the making of their content.


... and what happens, if such 'ND' work, just happens to have some work copied from another, which was completely/openly licensed?
Remember, one cannot simply take bits of code from various work which is licensed freely, mix it into their own work... and then stamp a ND license over it all.
I have seen people try to pull that off, and it's a scummy thing to do, but it happens more frequently than it should and than some think.

I am not crazy about ND, myself.
But, yes... there are clauses which can be put to use for both NC and ND.
But, this does not mean that they 'have to be' nor 'must be' accepted.
ND has been a 'no' in this community since, whenever... That I do not see changing any time soon. There are other communities which accept it.

I have never understood those who join any group/community... read the rules... and then want to continuously push to have the rules changed... or to continuously keep bringing up the topic... or, even to try to ignore them or find ways to work around them.
It's irritating, and makes no sense.
Why not simply find another group/community which fits better?

I do not have a problem with NC... (especially when they carry a clause which specifies that 'some' commercial use is tolerated)
I also know, NC is not accepted very well in this community so..., it never crosses my mind to try to ply it, or argue it.
I have used NC to protect my works but... I don't worry about it here because I do not produce work here, which I plan to make $ with, nor is it on par with work I feel is actually worth setting any restrictive licensing to.

I like this community because everyone just shares, everything. It's not even that an emphasis is put on that..., it just happens, and that's pretty cool, and it's a good environment.
I also like a couple other communities which are completely opposite. The secret is knowing the rules, and the common behavior of each community, and being able to adapt to each, accordingly.

And on top of all that babbling above... one individual started this whole thing, and a bunch of others joined on, and all have done, and still are providing it all for free, to anyone who wishes to join in... who is to say that this one dude has no right to decide the 'what and whatnots'?

Why on Earth would anyone join such a community as this, and see how things are..., ever even try to pass off a ND work to the community? Free or not. And then get upset, stating it's 'unfair'
It's more 'unfair' to keep trying to change the environment, which many enjoy (some for quite a while now)

And the only way I could ever see NC being acceptable in a place like this... it had better have a really good , tight clause.
One which states it is perfectly fine to use in videos (even monetized) etc... any use is allowed, as long as the monetary gains did not exceed something like $500.00 per year (or something like that)
Leaving everything basically, completely open and free... other than to make more than $500.00 US per year from it.
I have had work literally stolen from me in the past..., and it really sucks. One piece of work, of which an individual will continue to receive royalties for years to come.
I got a pathetic "shut up" check and as humbling and insulting as it was to take it... sometimes something is better than nothing.
But a lesson is learned from such events... such as where, when, how you present your work (and all the little bits in between those 3)

In short... :D (laughter goes here) I agree with not allowing unfree works within CDB
Me hungry... me go eat now.
Ich mag keine grünen Eier und Schinken, ich mag sie nicht Sam I Am
 

User avatar
LMD
Member
 
Posts: 783
Joined: Sat Apr 08, 2017 08:16
Location: Germany
GitHub: appgurueu
In-game: LMD + PRO_LMD + Limo

Re: Proposal: Content DB should only accept FOSS

by LMD » Mon Nov 05, 2018 11:48

and what happens, if such 'ND' work, just happens to have some work copied from another, which was completely/openly licensed?


The point is that this simply needn't be the case.
Talking about KGMs subgame LOTH, he did not really "copy" code.
The only thing he built upon was default MTG.
He even reinvented the wheel for that reason; accordingly, it's almost entirely his work.
So why should he be disallowed to put it under the license he preferes ?
Also, he made sure that the very free license of MTG allowed him the relicensing.

So as MTG's license intends to allow relicensing(even under ND or other "unfree" licenses), why doesn't the forum/cdb ?
BTW : I'm not a real fan of ND clauses; I prefer GPL. But ND clauses with exceptions seem acceptable to me.

Aside :
One piece of work, of which an individual will continue to receive royalties for years to come.

May I ask which piece of work it was ? Was it MT-related ?
 

Punk
Member
 
Posts: 158
Joined: Sun Dec 25, 2016 06:52

Re: Proposal: Content DB should only accept FOSS

by Punk » Mon Nov 05, 2018 16:22

If I were a modest youtuber and made a considerate income from it, could not I use anything CC-NC in my job?
Why is it a good thing? Why do people think in big corporations when then think in commercial actions?
 

Punk
Member
 
Posts: 158
Joined: Sun Dec 25, 2016 06:52

Re: Proposal: Content DB should only accept FOSS

by Punk » Mon Nov 05, 2018 17:12

rubenwardy wrote:CC-ND is not permitted on cdb or the forums


Even for the media?
 

User avatar
Mantar
Member
 
Posts: 78
Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2017 18:46

Re: Proposal: Content DB should only accept FOSS

by Mantar » Mon Nov 05, 2018 17:14

Another example is how some linux distros will mail you a dvd copy of their distro+repository for the cost of media+shipping, to help out people with poor bandwidth or unreliable connections. Others charge a small fee as a sort of contribution to the distro's general funds.

Yet NC clauses don't permit either, so any such distros can't include NC licensed software no matter how "non-commercial" they actually are.
 

Sires
Member
 
Posts: 186
Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2017 21:00
Location: :noitacoL
GitHub: Sires0
IRC: Sires
In-game: Sires Sores Siri Seris or anything ppl call me

Re: Proposal: Content DB should only accept FOSS

by Sires » Mon Nov 05, 2018 23:05

LMD wrote:I also like to take opposing viewpoints.

So do I, but MT ain't My cool democracy 'n' sTuff, if mt devs simply decide to say ND is not permitted then it's done.

LMD wrote:But I think the CDB should also - as THE main content database for MT - accept "unfree" content.

As THE main content database for MT, I must state very clearly it's more than logical of accepting free-only, since minetest is already a free project, why making minetest free and allowing the contents you can download through it to be non-free?

LMD wrote:It would even be okay if you put a warning over such content.

It would be the minimum, I'd recommend putting a virtual Richard M. Stallman in every non-free mod explaining why this mod is evil and you shall not download it :P

LMD wrote:But I feel entirely banning it is not the right way.

Minetest deserves being free. We(idk why I included myself but kay) may even lose support from many FOSS communities. (I recognize it would be very extreme but I don't doubt it)

LMD wrote:Remember the devs of ND software have their reasons for using this license and have also spent time into the making of their content.

Great! Their mods/subgames(as you call it) will be highly appreciated being free, if you use an attribution license then it's greater! You help community with code, your stuff gets appreciated, people credit you for your stuff and even can improve it, ain't it utopic rite? :P

Okay ND devs may have their reasons, but they have no reasons for saying that is free content, thus it shall not get into CDB.

LMD wrote:An entire subgame has already been lost to the visibility of this community due to license battles.
As well as other content.


And if they just accepted being free, imagine how many other subgames(*as you call it*) would have been created! People could go on, remix it, add content, if the creators wanted people would credit them, it would be awesome! But it's not because as you make me understand here, they wanted it to be non-free.

LMD wrote:So, may it only be a VERY tiny fraction, it's simply not that nice to ban work - which is, in fact - still being given out for NOTHING.

Of course it is, time 4 teaching people to have fun and be free, not simply recognizing their mods as a way to prestige themselves. Making your code and not letting people copy it(either they give credit or not) is good and all that stuff to the small fraction of people that don't understand their mod in under a *free* CDB

LMD wrote:But I (now) have come to the conclusion that placing a well-visible warning is necessary then. Else modders could get into bad situations - like forking some content which they may not fork, and accordingly having to take their fork down.

While reading the first 2 paragraphs I recognize we would need at least to include a virtual RMS to explain you why it's bad, you recognize that a warning is necessary just at the end?? -.-


LMD wrote:Also, some supporters of ND believe that allowing forks is a good idea, but have worries concerning appropriate crediting. So they think it is best if somebody needs their explicit allowance to release a modifiyed version of your content.

Oh no dat crediting talk yet again, please, isn't keep your name there as the author not enough credit? This is already all the credit you get, if you want more then tell people to put a golden image of your name into the registered nodes .-.

LMD wrote:Take a look at KGM's guards mod :
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=17483
zorman2000 politely asked whether he may fork it and everything worked perfect.

Yep ic, and its under GNU Lesser General Public License if I can read correctly, afaik it's not a no derivates :P
I don't have anything important to say.
 

User avatar
Wuzzy
Member
 
Posts: 3543
Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2012 15:01
GitHub: Wuzzy2
IRC: Wuzzy
In-game: Wuzzy

Re: Proposal: Content DB should only accept FOSS

by Wuzzy » Wed Jan 30, 2019 18:53

In reply to <https://forum.minetest.net/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=22010&view=unread#p342112>:

ShadMOrdre wrote:My freedom to use proprietary software, FOSS software, open source software, closed source software, top secret software, public domain software or ANY software, is not your freedom of choice to make, any more than I can decide for you, in the complete opposite. Think this through. Whose freedom are you protecting?

You seem to misunderstand …
What YOU use is none of my business. I do not criticize you for whatever software you use. Yes, even if it's proprietary. That's your choice, and your problem alone. I don't even know what kind of software you use anyway. (But I will still rant about proprietary software in general (not sorry …). :D )

However, what we, as a community publish as software is a different beast. You seem to believe that Content DB is obliged to host any submission that people throw on it, as if any restriction would be evil. There is a distinction between restricting freedom of publishing your own work on your own platform and refusal to publish someone else's work on your own platform. This is important. Imagine you would host your own Content DB clone. Would you like it if someone could coerce you to host all the things that people upload on it? I hope not.

In the Content DB, there are clearly some things that should not be hosted on it.
E.g. you wouldn't propose to allow malware on Content DB, would you?

ShadMOrdre wrote:As a developer, it is my right to license my work in such a way as to protect myself, my work, and it's proliferation in the world. Would you deny me my freedom to make a living?.

Well, that's the thing. This “right” only works by sacrificing the freedom of others. Copyright sounds great on paper, but only if you look at “The Author” and ignore the other people. Copyright is not free. It only works precisely by restricting the artistic freedom of others. If you would be serious about your freedom rant, you should have at least acknowledged this obvious problem.
Also, copyright is not a “right to make a living”. You seem to confuse copyright with universal basic income. Even copyright is not a guarantee you will make a living. That's a good thing, or would you like to be forced to buy Microsoft (or whatever) products because they have “a right to make a living”?
Also, making an argument based on an existing law is not really convincing. What is lawful, and what is morally right, are often two different things.

ShadMOrdre wrote:Understand, I am no fan of corporate policies that try to make money of my usage of software by forcing me to pay for features that have already been coded. This is very specific. In this knowledge economy, knowledge is both time and money

Such abuse would only be legal if you would use an all-permissive license without copyleft. Because if there's no copyleft, anyone can slap their own proprietary terms on it, which enables them to “force to pay”.
So use a copyleft license then. For example, GPL or CC BY-SA protect quite well against such abuse while still counting as a free/libre license. People might still charge money, true, but they cannot monopolize it anymore and they almost certainly have to compete with gratis.
Oh wait, you already do use copyleft (at least sometimes). I wonder, did you ever have trouble with corporate abuse of your copylefted content?
My creations. I gladly accept bitcoins: 17fsUywHxeMHKG41UFfu34F1rAxZcrVoqH
 

User avatar
paramat
Developer
 
Posts: 3409
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2012 00:05
Location: UK
GitHub: paramat
IRC: paramat

Re: Proposal: Content DB should only accept FOSS

by paramat » Wed Jan 30, 2019 19:36

> This “right” only works by sacrificing the freedom of others

Copyright can go too far, and be applied badly of course. However, basically, it only removes the freedom of people who want to steal your work, profit from it themselves, and deny you from earning a living from your work. In this case yes these people should have their freedoms sacrificed, just as we remove the freedom of criminals who steal.

> Also, copyright is not a “right to make a living”.

Copyright is the only way to make a living for a large section of society. And people have the right to profit from their work.
 

User avatar
Wuzzy
Member
 
Posts: 3543
Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2012 15:01
GitHub: Wuzzy2
IRC: Wuzzy
In-game: Wuzzy

Re: Proposal: Content DB should only accept FOSS

by Wuzzy » Wed Jan 30, 2019 20:52

However, basically, it only removes the freedom of people who want to steal your work, profit from it themselves, and deny you from earning a living from your work.

First, copying is not theft.

Second, ironically, this is exactly how copyright works. It monopolizes a work and denies people that happen to be outside of the monopoly from earning a living from it.

Third, it's not true that it ONLY removes those freedoms. It also removes your freedom irregardless if your intentions are noble or evil. Many things that are basic use cases in the Internet are forbidden by default: Sharing/copying something uncommercially, remixing a work for teh lulz, in some countries there's also no exception for parody.

Fourth, in the real world, copyright does often not belong to the actual contributors. Case in point: IIRC, celeron55 is still the official copyright holder of Minetest, but we all know it's a huge collaborative projects with contributors from all over the world. For Minetest, this is harmless as it's under a libre license. :-)

deny you from earning a living from your work.

This part does not make sense. If copyright would not exist, there would be no legal basis to deny someone to earn a living. Or did I misunderstand you here?

just as we remove the freedom of criminals who steal.

If you're talking about prisons, well, I'm against the prison system as well.

> Also, copyright is not a “right to make a living”.

Copyright is the only way to make a living for a large section of society.

And that is also patently false. Have you heard of Nina Paley?

And people have the right to profit from their work.

Not exactly true. They have a right to profit from their copyrighted work. If they have lost the copyright on that work, or it doesn't fall under copyright (for trivial works), they do not have the right. Look up “work for hire”.
My creations. I gladly accept bitcoins: 17fsUywHxeMHKG41UFfu34F1rAxZcrVoqH
 

ShadMOrdre
Member
 
Posts: 465
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2014 08:07
Location: USA
GitHub: ShadMOrdre
In-game: shadmordre

Re: Proposal: Content DB should only accept FOSS

by ShadMOrdre » Wed Jan 30, 2019 21:58

Wuzzy,

This “right” only works by sacrificing the freedom of others.


This alone implies that you think you are entitled to my work. Please explain this.

I create. I choose to release. I choose to protect my self and my work. You are not in this process, have no say, right, or opinion. You are not I. I create, release, and protect. Where do You fit in? You choose to use or not. There are no rights. There is only a choice.

Copyrights are patents for works that are fundementally the same thing, the work of an individual. Do you also feel that all knowledge should be freely available? Your arguements imply that this is core to your beliefs.

You seem to believe that Content DB is obliged to host any submission that people throw on it, as if any restriction would be evil.


You seem to think before you read and understand. I in no way implied anything like this. I merely suggested that self-rating is preferred to outright censorship. It was you who began with accusations of censorship, that the ratings would mean content would be censored. That was the gist of your initial post.

The rest of your post comes off as rabid FOSS fanboy. Don't throw some hyperlink to explain yourself, use your own words to defend your contradictions. And avoid the arguments that imply I, as creator, have no rights to impose upon my creation. You are not entitled to MY creation, unless I say, and at my discretion. If you don't like those terms, please sign the EULA below stating that you are in agreement so that we can get back to better things like making great mods for Minetest.

EULA: I hereby agree to continue to create mods, answer questions, get berated, offer advise, and otherwise be a positive contributing member of the Minetest.net community.

Shad
MY MODS: lib_ecology lib_materials lib_clouds lib_node_shapes ---- Inspired By: Open Source Virtual World Simulator Opensimulator.
 

User avatar
Linuxdirk
Member
 
Posts: 2106
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2014 11:21
Location: Germany
In-game: Linuxdirk

Re: Proposal: Content DB should only accept FOSS

by Linuxdirk » Wed Jan 30, 2019 22:38

ShadMOrdre wrote:You choose to use or not. There are no rights. There is only a choice.

And out of the same mindset the content DB prohibits non-free licenses.
 

ShadMOrdre
Member
 
Posts: 465
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2014 08:07
Location: USA
GitHub: ShadMOrdre
In-game: shadmordre

Re: Proposal: Content DB should only accept FOSS

by ShadMOrdre » Wed Jan 30, 2019 23:50

Linuxdirk,

Those are actually two different subjects. How a developer chooses to release a product, and ultimately, an end users' rights or entitlements to said product have nothing to do with why the CDB should remain opensource.

Although, in light of your comment here:

Yes, all power to the users.


This is not the same. Confusing the philosophy of open source, and the rights of users to choose open source or closed, does not equate. Open source refers to a users ability to not only possess the code for use, but to also see the code, and to make modifications. A users right to choose the software of their choice is actual freedom. Even if their choice is not in their best interest.

Seriously, I don't get the fanboy. Open source is fine. But there are valid reasons for closed source, proprietary, or any other model that does not fit the "definition" of open source, which is technically different than FOSS, which is technically different from open libre free freedom free as in beer or any other derivitive expression, license, or software.

The rabid FOSS fanboy comes across as someone who expects the freedom to use, copy or modify my literary, artistic, musical, or code development endeavors. Is the same expected of the manufacturer of your car, refrigerator, or your doctors MRI? The arguments are not different. If you can see beyond the fanboy, you'd see that your freedom lies only in choices, not in access to some "forbidden" black box.

For the record, I think self rating over censorship is preferred. I also think that the CBD should employ a label system, and allow both FOSS and proprietary, adult and family friendly, as well as category labeling, simply to make it easier for users to find what they want. Restricting the CBD to FOSS only limits content, but more importantly, restricts the user.

If you want to empower users, nothing short of giving them ALL the options actually empowers anyone. The power remains in someone else's hands. And that is contradictory to FOSS.

Shad
MY MODS: lib_ecology lib_materials lib_clouds lib_node_shapes ---- Inspired By: Open Source Virtual World Simulator Opensimulator.
 

User avatar
Linuxdirk
Member
 
Posts: 2106
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2014 11:21
Location: Germany
In-game: Linuxdirk

Re: Proposal: Content DB should only accept FOSS

by Linuxdirk » Thu Jan 31, 2019 11:29

ShadMOrdre wrote:Open source is fine. But there are valid reasons for closed source, [...]

This is not about OS vs CS, it is about CDB only allowing OS. There is nothing to discuss about. If you want to offer CS mods you're free to do so. Your're just not allowed to advertise them in the forums or host them in the CDB.
 

ShadMOrdre
Member
 
Posts: 465
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2014 08:07
Location: USA
GitHub: ShadMOrdre
In-game: shadmordre

Re: Proposal: Content DB should only accept FOSS

by ShadMOrdre » Thu Jan 31, 2019 16:54

Linuxdirk,

Actually, this thread is about a proposal, which has since been accepted. The conversation thread, on the other hand, was about something Wuzzy said in a different thread, replied to here, and then you began commenting as well.

I am simply holding you to your statements. I want you to think through, to the nth degree, before you respond. This usually means spending more than the time it takes to hit the reply button.

"All power to the people." You said it. Defend that statement, with your words, in light of your other statements.

I have only expressed my opinion about what should be allowed in CDB, taking into consideration what others have also stated. What has been decided regarding that content is already well established knowledge for those of us, like you, who hang out in the forums. So stating the obvious is not a response, but simply dodging the question.

IMHO, all MT mods are derivitive works, and are therefore required to be licensed LGPL2.1. (Let the flames begin.....). Lua script or not, the script don't work if you ain't runnin' minetest, which decodes your script making it usable. Under the definition of the license, you are not using an API, in a standalone library, you are in fact running the program to use the script. Think it through to the Nth degree. Or at least have a basic understanding of the legal lingo embedded within. I don't need to be a lawyer to express a legal opinion. I am not advising anyone, therefore fall outside the requirement of providing the legal disclaimer of --I ANAL--,

This is very similar to the conversation regarding the change from GPL2 to GPL3 some years back. LT himself decided, based in part on that conversation, to keep the Linux kernel at GPL2. To do otherwise would have required a fork, according to the legal lingo that the license choosing developer locked himself into.

To the nth degree. Linus saw this, and acted accordingly. And we continue to get Linux.

At no point have I otherwise disagreed with what goes into the CBD. All my mods, to my knowledge, are licensed LGPL2.1, and any media content has been licensed as CC-SA-3. I stand by my statements and convictions, and defend with MY words, those very things. I do not resort to random hyperlinks or fall back to "toeing" the line.

Shad
MY MODS: lib_ecology lib_materials lib_clouds lib_node_shapes ---- Inspired By: Open Source Virtual World Simulator Opensimulator.
 

User avatar
Linuxdirk
Member
 
Posts: 2106
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2014 11:21
Location: Germany
In-game: Linuxdirk

Re: Proposal: Content DB should only accept FOSS

by Linuxdirk » Thu Jan 31, 2019 17:30

ShadMOrdre wrote:IMHO, all MT mods are derivitive works, and are therefore required to be licensed LGPL2.1.

No, this is wrong. Mods are software that use libraries, at best (actually not even this. They're just scripts that use API functions). It is absolutely fine to use LGPL 2.1 libraries with software licensed with other licenses. Paragraphs 5 and 6a.

ShadMOrdre wrote:All my mods, to my knowledge, are licensed LGPL2.1, and any media content has been licensed as CC-SA-3.

This is not correct. There are mods with various other free licenses for code and media.
 

User avatar
Wuzzy
Member
 
Posts: 3543
Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2012 15:01
GitHub: Wuzzy2
IRC: Wuzzy
In-game: Wuzzy

Re: Proposal: Content DB should only accept FOSS

by Wuzzy » Thu Jan 31, 2019 19:53

Seriously, I don't get the fanboy. Open source is fine.

Well, I could call you “fanboy”, too, because of your apparent strong pro-copyright position. But I won't because I don't want to sound like a dick.

But there are valid reasons for closed source, proprietary, or any other model that does not fit the "definition" of open source, which is technically different than FOSS, which is technically different from open libre free freedom free as in beer or any other derivitive expression, license, or software.

What are these “valid reasons”?

Btw: Neither free software nor proprietary software is a “model” as in “development model”. Or how do I have to understand the term here?

Btw 2: While “free software” and “open source” are technically different, their definitions are still very, very similar. Look it up.

This alone implies that you think you are entitled to my work. Please explain this.

It's not an entitlement. To create, copy and share creative works is part of human nature, and to simply want to follow human nature is not an entitlement. You make is sound as if it would be evil to do so.

What IS an entitlement, however, is insisting that one alone gets to dictate to all other humans in the entire world what to do, simply because the law says so. In fact, even the idea that one person alone can hold an exclusive monopoly right on a part of culture is a blatant form of entitlement. It is entitlement to want to dictate who can and cannot do something with that part of culture.

I'm not saying that copyright does not exist, but I am questioning the ideology of copyright.

Also, this is the Internet, the largest copying machine in the world. There's a simple rule: If you do not want something to spread, do not post it in the Internet. If you post anything in the Internet, you have de facto surrendered control over it and have to expect copying, sharing, ridicul, pr0n versions and whatnot. If you post something on the Internet, and whine about its usage afterwards, frankly, its kind of your fault, too. It does not matter if this is legal or not, the Internet does it anyway. This is just how the Internet works. Like it or not, you can't change it anyway.

I choose to protect my self and my work. You are not in this process, have no say, right, or opinion. You are not I. I create, release, and protect. Where do You fit in? You choose to use or not. There are no rights. There is only a choice.

Nobody is harmed, nothing is lost when anyone's creative artwork is copied. And what the heck is this “choice” thing you keep talking about?

Copyrights are patents for works that are fundementally the same thing, the work of an individual.

And that is patently false (pun intended). Copyrights are NOT patents. Copyright law and patent law are very different with very different histories and justifications. Please read more about these things before making such absurd claims.

Do you also feel that all knowledge should be freely available? Your arguements imply that this is core to your beliefs.

Almost. Not all knowledge should be public, but all knowledge of public interest should, in general, be public. Why should it be different? Do you want to keep the general public stupid and uninformed? I hope not. It's benefits all of us if we share knowledge instead of keeping it a guarded secret.

Excluded from this is private personal data like birth name, birth date, social ID, passwords, etc. Here it is justified to have secrets.

And avoid the arguments that imply I, as creator, have no rights to impose upon my creation. You are not entitled to MY creation, unless I say, and at my discretion.

Look: You are not my master.

This is not the same. Confusing the philosophy of open source, and the rights of users to choose open source or closed, does not equate. Open source refers to a users ability to not only possess the code for use, but to also see the code, and to make modifications. A users right to choose the software of their choice is actual freedom. Even if their choice is not in their best interest.

The rabid FOSS fanboy comes across as someone who expects the freedom to use, copy or modify my literary, artistic, musical, or code development endeavors. Is the same expected of the manufacturer of your car, refrigerator, or your doctors MRI? The arguments are not different. If you can see beyond the fanboy, you'd see that your freedom lies only in choices, not in access to some "forbidden" black box.

I don't understand what's up with your “choices” argument … It's about the Content DB only, and not about controlling the entire Internet. Jeez.

Well, the other things you mentioned are not software, so are irrelevant to this discussion. Don't worry, I am not one of those crazy open source proponents who forcefully apply the label “open source” on countless non-software things, no matter if it actually makes sense or not (most of the time, it doesn't). This list makes me want to puke.

However, transparency in general is a good thing. In general. But that's very very off-topic.

You seem to think before you read and understand. I in no way implied anything like this. I merely suggested that self-rating is preferred to outright censorship. It was you who began with accusations of censorship, that the ratings would mean content would be censored. That was the gist of your initial post.

I already stated that I am fine with a rating system if and only if it is optional and objective.
If you're not proposing to censor Content DB for “questionable” content, then all is fine. :)

The rest of your post comes off as rabid FOSS fanboy. Don't throw some hyperlink to explain yourself, use your own words to defend your contradictions.

It doesn't help your case if you call me “rabid FOSS fanboy”. It really does not help your case if you deliberately choose to ignore reading material. It's not even long. :( Why should I use “my own words”? I would just repeat what has already been stated, so that's just redundant. I can not stand willful ignorance.

Also, what contradictions?

If you want to empower users, nothing short of giving them ALL the options actually empowers anyone. The power remains in someone else's hands. And that is contradictory to FOSS.

It's still technically and legally possible to develop proprietary mods for Minetest. And we can not and will not prevent anyone from doing that. Although I will condemn it (unsurprisingly).
But I disagree that Content DB should “feel obliged” to host all of them and present them to the user on a silver platter and basically give them free advertisement. Being on Content DB should NOT be a free-for-all. If we just allow everything, Content DB must host malware, too, because of “user choice”.
Proprietary developers should get no support from us (or better: not too much support), they should simply host their stuff elsewhere. That's basically all this is about. And no, such behaviour is not unethical. Simply refusing to collaborate and refusing to give someone a platform is not unethical.

I don't get why you are defending the rights of proprietary developers since it doesn't even affect you.

EULA: I hereby agree to continue to create mods, answer questions, get berated, offer advise, and otherwise be a positive contributing member of the Minetest.net community.

Sorry, I won't sign that. I contribute to the Minetest community whenever I feel like it.
My creations. I gladly accept bitcoins: 17fsUywHxeMHKG41UFfu34F1rAxZcrVoqH
 

wziard
Member
 
Posts: 126
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2018 19:12

Re: Proposal: Content DB should only accept FOSS

by wziard » Thu Jan 31, 2019 21:14

Wuzzy. I agree with you for 99%.

Only this food for thought:
The way the world works now, we *need* copyright. Or artists/creators have no means of living. When you were a musician in 1800 you got payed to play. If people wanted music, they *needed* to hire a musician (or do it themselves). Nowadays people just play recorded music 99% of the time. You can still make *some* money with playing gigs. But it's very hard without some extra income from the sale of recordings. The same goes for storytellers/writers. We could conclude those professions are like horse drivers or steam-engine-makers and just let them die off. But IMHO that doesn't really make the world a better place.

Also we *need* copyright because copyright law is actually what makes CopyLeft licences work. Without copyright, lots of unethical people and companies could just take open source code and only release modified binaries (well, they do that now, too, but we have copyright law on our side to fight them).

It used to be different. Copyright is a rather recent invention after all. The church/nobility used to pay for most books and art. You didn't need copyright, because copying stuff was *hard*.

Which society is better is food for debate. But we live in the current one and have to deal with it's realities.

But I agree with you we should strive for as minimal a copyright system as possible.
 

ShadMOrdre
Member
 
Posts: 465
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2014 08:07
Location: USA
GitHub: ShadMOrdre
In-game: shadmordre

Re: Proposal: Content DB should only accept FOSS

by ShadMOrdre » Thu Jan 31, 2019 21:56

Wuzzy,

Well, I could call you “fanboy”, too, because of your apparent strong pro-copyright position. But I won't because I don't want to sound like a dick.


Whilest this is just incorrect, it does deserve merit. I am ALL for protecting myself and my work. There is nothing left to discuss on this particular matter, as you most likely agree that you are ALL for protecting yourself and your work. This is competely separate from pro/anti for/against ... My rights to copyright, to self protect, are mine alone. They are not for anyone to infringe upon. This is how I protect my right and entitlement to profit from my work. Whether that work be my own creation, or my efforts towards someone else's creation. If I get paid, I profit.

Well, that's the thing. This “right” only works by sacrificing the freedom of others. Copyright sounds great on paper, but only if you look at “The Author” and ignore the other people. Copyright is not free. It only works precisely by restricting the artistic freedom of others. If you would be serious about your freedom rant, you should have at least acknowledged this obvious problem.
Also, copyright is not a “right to make a living”. You seem to confuse copyright with universal basic income. Even copyright is not a guarantee you will make a living. That's a good thing, or would you like to be forced to buy Microsoft (or whatever) products because they have “a right to make a living”?
Also, making an argument based on an existing law is not really convincing. What is lawful, and what is morally right, are often two different things.

Such abuse would only be legal if you would use an all-permissive license without copyleft. Because if there's no copyleft, anyone can slap their own proprietary terms on it, which enables them to “force to pay”.
So use a copyleft license then. For example, GPL or CC BY-SA protect quite well against such abuse while still counting as a free/libre license. People might still charge money, true, but they cannot monopolize it anymore and they almost certainly have to compete with gratis.

However, basically, it only removes the freedom of people who want to steal your work, profit from it themselves, and deny you from earning a living from your work.

First, copying is not theft.


Please, then, explain this contradiction.

Copyrights exist to protect my rights, and to allow me to safely extend those rights to you. I am all for open knowledge, open source, and copyrights, because they can and do coexist, for everyone's protection.

My complaint has been the overwhelming sense that you are entitled to use or profit from my work, and your wilingness to remove my protections for myself and my work by denying me the ability to copyright. Do not confuse copyright and proprietary, as you seem to have been doing, because even copyleft/FOSS/open source is copyright.

You have previously stated that you are against the idea of copyright. I am for open knowledge and sharing of ideas for humanity. I am also for protecting myself. These are not the same concepts. Each is distinct.

Choices refer to the fact that freedom is not freedom without choices. The removal a single choice, is the removal of freedom. This is ancient wisdom.

And for most of the other stuff, it was in response to Linuxdirk, not you, and so I won't comment on that.

BTW, thanks for using your own words, Wuzzy. I knew I could count on you. Just look how long yer last post was... ;)

Shad
MY MODS: lib_ecology lib_materials lib_clouds lib_node_shapes ---- Inspired By: Open Source Virtual World Simulator Opensimulator.
 

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests