Trump Given 30 Days To Have His Social Media Site Comply With Open Source License

from the tick-tock dept

Plenty of people have raised concerns that Donald Trump’s sketchy new social media site, Truth Social, is just a lightly reskinned Mastodon, which is violating Mastodon’s fairly strict AGPLv3 license. As we had previously discussed, the aggressive (and sloppy) terms of service for the site claim that the code is proprietary, and even claims that “all source code, databases, functionality, software, website designs, audio, video, text, photographs, and graphics on the Site (collectively, the ?Content?) and the trademarks, service marks, and logos contained therein (the ?Marks?) are owned or controlled by us or licensed to us…”

Of course, part of the reason that Mastodon uses such a license is to encourage others to take the code and build on it if they abide by the terms of the license. And the nature of Mastodon’s license is that if you use it, you must make the complete source code available of what you build with it. The key bit of the license:

You may convey a work based on the Program, or the modifications to produce it from the Program, in the form of source code under the terms of section 4, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:

a) The work must carry prominent notices stating that you modified it, and giving a relevant date.

b) The work must carry prominent notices stating that it is released under this License and any conditions added under section 7. This requirement modifies the requirement in section 4 to “keep intact all notices”.

c) You must license the entire work, as a whole, under this License to anyone who comes into possession of a copy. This License will therefore apply, along with any applicable section 7 additional terms, to the whole of the work, and all its parts, regardless of how they are packaged. This License gives no permission to license the work in any other way, but it does not invalidate such permission if you have separately received it.

d) If the work has interactive user interfaces, each must display Appropriate Legal Notices; however, if the Program has interactive interfaces that do not display Appropriate Legal Notices, your work need not make them do so.

It’s not clear that any of these conditions have been met. So, now the Software Freedom Conservancy has given Trump 30 days to bring the code into compliance — specifically by providing the source code to Truth Social to the early users who were able to sign up — or, under the license terms, Trump’s “rights in the software are permanently terminated.”

Early evidence strongly supports that Trump’s Group publicly launched a so-called ?test site? of their ?Truth Social? product, based on the AGPLv3’d Mastodon software platform. Many users were able to create accounts and use it ? briefly. However, when you put any site on the Internet licensed under AGPLv3, the AGPLv3 requires that you provide (to every user) an opportunity to receive the entire Corresponding Source for the website based on that code. These early users did not receive that source code, and Trump’s Group is currently ignoring their very public requests for it. To comply with this important FOSS license, Trump’s Group needs to immediately make that Corresponding Source available to all who used the site today while it was live. If they fail to do this within 30 days, their rights and permissions in the software are automatically and permanently terminated. That’s how AGPLv3’s cure provision works ? no exceptions ? even if you’re a real estate mogul, reality television star, or even a former POTUS.

I and my colleagues at Software Freedom Conservancy are experts at investigating non-compliance with copyleft license and enforcing those licenses once we confirm the violations. We will be following this issue very closely and insisting that Trump’s Group give the Corresponding Source to all who use the site.

I think that’s called being put on notice. It will be interesting to see how Trump responds — and what happens next.

Filed Under: , , , , ,
Companies: mastodon, software freedom conservancy, truth social

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Trump Given 30 Days To Have His Social Media Site Comply With Open Source License”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
80 Comments
This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
David says:

You got the wrong clause.

The clause you cite is identical between GPL and AGPL and is irrelevant since it is conditioned on "You may convey a work based on the Program …" which the company does not do.

The relevant clause is the difference between AGPL and GPL and reads:

/13/. Remote Network Interaction; Use with the GNU General Public License.

Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, if you modify the
Program, your modified version must prominently offer all users
interacting with it remotely through a computer network (if your version
supports such interaction) an opportunity to receive the Corresponding
Source of your version by providing access to the Corresponding Source
from a network server at no charge, through some standard or customary
means of facilitating copying of software. This Corresponding Source
shall include the Corresponding Source for any work covered by version 3
of the GNU General Public License that is incorporated pursuant to the
following paragraph.

Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, you have
permission to link or combine any covered work with a work licensed
under version 3 of the GNU General Public License into a single
combined work, and to convey the resulting work. The terms of this
License will continue to apply to the part which is the covered work,
but the work with which it is combined will remain governed by version
3 of the GNU General Public License.

James Burkhardt (profile) says:

Re: You got the wrong clause.

shit formatting aside, perhaps you could explain why trump is not in violation of the license? You claim that trump isn’t conveying a work based on the program. Does that have a specific jargon meaning in this context that trump doesn’t meet in some specific way? comparing the language you shared provides no great insight as to why trump isn’t considered to be conveying a work based on mastodon?

AJ (profile) says:

Re: Re: You got the wrong clause.

The GPLv3 and hence also the AGPLv3 very explicitly define what they mean by “convey” (they deliberately don’t use a standard legal term, IIRC there’s an annotated version which explains why if you’re interested). Trump probably is in violation of the AGPL clause 13, but that’s not the clause cited in the article as David explained.

Federico (profile) says:

What happens next

The answer is: more grifting.

Shares of Digital World Acquisition Corp have risen 842% since the blank-check acquisition company announced on Wednesday it would merge with Trump Media & Technology Group, which aims to launch a social media network called TRUTH Social.

https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-trump-socialmedia-investors-idUSKBN2HF0QI

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

C’mon, consequences! Let’s go, consequences!

Seriously, I hope Trump’s lackeys (because you know he has nothing to do with this beyond somehow licensing his name and image to this project) don’t do shit in re: this warning. I want to see those grifting fucks get what’s coming to them.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

Are you saying that people shouldn’t be concerned with the worst president in modern history, who got kicked out by a large popular majority but whose followers still think he won and is their front running contender for the next election? Because that would be almost as stupid as being one of the people who thinks he won.

Bloof (profile) says:

I fully expect this to end like most Trump contract breaches, with him going ‘Well, what are you going to do about it, sue me? I’ll bleed you dry with legal fees, slow walking everything to drag out the case and appealing every decision then refusing to comply with any eventual settlement.’ Without a big fundraising effort just to fight this case, he’ll probably get away with it because he’s done this a million times to small businesses, lawyers, suppliers, creditors…

Bilvin Spicklittle says:

One wonders if they’ll simply comply, or if it’ll turn into some bizarre Custer’s Last Stand for them.

If it was someone else, I’d just chalk it up to a lazy and incompetent staff that ignored the need for compliance, which after having been poked, will scramble to respond (first with lawyers, and then when the lawyers tell them what’s up, with half-assed compliance).

Such things have nothing to do with politics, and every company/organization pulls stunts like this once in awhile regardless of politics.

But it being Trump’s tribe, there’s a good chance that they’ll try to make this political. That would be entertaining, I think. The entirety of the loony right will have to invent fictions on how this is just another dirty trick of the left to try to cheat Trump out of that which is rightfully his. About how Linus Stallman invented open source software to teach our children satanic cannibalism habits and to want to have sex with dogs. To undermine our historic and enviable friendship with Russia, even to incite illegal Mexican gang immigrants to burgle the nursing homes and set our patio furniture on fire.

Let’s be honest folks. On a Monday this boring, doesn’t that excite-disgust you just a little bit? I’m sort of looking forward to it, even if you aren’t.

Discuss It (profile) says:

How they got Trump

is the same as how they got Capone. Big Al didn’t go to the big house for running booze, killing people, whores or extortion.

They don’t look to be getting former President Trump for tax evasion, so, maybe for copyright? Jack Daniels didn’t die of a blown out liver, he died of an infection when he kicked a safe he couldn’t open.

It’s always the little things…

ECA (profile) says:

to many wonders.

Why does a public site need to be on the Stock exchange?

Is trump trumped?

Unless he has someone or company building the site and has all the data, or using a publicly available Free to use with no CR/IP, then gets a Lease from the creator or buys it Out right and all the CR/IP to keep it for himself.(someone is going to make allot of money) I wonder if the Republican party is backing him, or NOT. Another person Not paid going to court.

Reinventing the Wheel isnt needed, he just needs to follow a few rules.

sumgai (profile) says:

How it'll all go down....

Discuss It mentioned it above, in one fleeting sentence. Let’s get into the nitty-gritty.

The courts certainly are NOT the correct solution here. The fast and lasting way that can’t be easily circumvented is to serve DMCA copyright notices to all infrastructure suppliers for that site. After reading countless articles on how these things work, and given the fact that countering them requires a lot of effort (and no small amount of money), I’m pretty sure that UNtruth Social will not make it to prime time in the near future.

At least, not without #45 having to go on the offense for a change. Then he’ll find out how slow-walking works, won’t he though.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
James Burkhardt (profile) says:

Re: How it'll all go down....

The DMCA might bring the site down but you clearly haven’t taken the process on board.

DMcA takedown notice. if it’s a US host the content probably comes down.

DMCA Counter notice: This notice asserts the content is not infringing. after this notice the content could be restored, but content that comes down normally stars down for 2 weeks after a counter notice. if a lawsuit is filed in those 2 weeks , the content must come down again. by contrast if no lawsuit is filed, the content remains up.

The courts are 100% where this ends up. If he didn’t listen to this letter, he wont have an issue calling the bluff and sending the counter notice.

The reason you don’t use the DMCA being shot from the hip is now they can show a reasonable, moderated effort to compel compliance with licensing terms. This builds credit with the judge and/or jury. More importantly, It also importantly builds trust in tge open source community. good faith actors without teams of lawyers aren’t going to worry about being wiped out for minor mistakes like accidentally dropping the link to the source code.

sumgai (profile) says:

Re: Re: How it'll all go down....

James and Thad,

I said "all the parts of the infrastructure", whereby I include the DNS servers, any cloud storage, CDN(s), all of it. Even at the gateway between countries, should the host provider be outside of the US. That’s not going to be easy, but it can be done, and it should be done for the best effect.

The reason you don’t use the DMCA being shot from the hip is now they can show a reasonable, moderated effort to compel compliance with licensing terms.

The very act of going to court is that compulsion, before or after a DMCA notice makes no practical difference. What I’m saying is that going to court first allows a very long time slot wherein #45’s crude and crass stealing remains in action. The DMCA notice squelches that much more quickly. And while a court case pursuant to a counter-claim notice is in play, the hosting provider most likely will not restore the site…… at least not without a direct court order.

As to due process…. I’m surprised at this one. The current law as implemented seems (very strongly) to explicitly exclude due process. IOW, a claim is made, and an adverse action is taken, end of story. At no time was any investigation as to the veracity of the claim made, not by any person, company, government agency, nor the courts. I find that to be the poster-boy for "no due process". I personally think that this lack is a large part of why the internet is in such turmoil, because we US citizens were raised to believe that one is innocent until proven guilty….. and we’re not seeing that on the internet, are we?

Thad (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: How it'll all go down....

As to due process…. I’m surprised at this one. The current law as implemented seems (very strongly) to explicitly exclude due process. IOW, a claim is made, and an adverse action is taken, end of story. At no time was any investigation as to the veracity of the claim made, not by any person, company, government agency, nor the courts.

Yes.

That’s how DMCA takedowns work.

That’s why we don’t like them.

I personally think that this lack is a large part of why the internet is in such turmoil, because we US citizens were raised to believe that one is innocent until proven guilty….. and we’re not seeing that on the internet, are we?

What in God’s name are you jabbering about?

Ed (profile) says:

What will happen in 30 days?

Nothing. Trump will ignore the law. Trump will fundraise on the "threats from libs!" The "law" won’t do anything and Trump will continue to raise money and spew lies and propaganda all while the "libs!" wring their hands and moan about how unfair they’re being treated and the Democrats in Congress argue about which verb or noun is more appropriate and continue to get absolutely nothing done.

freelunch says:

trump given 30 days ...

Is there an example, better yet many examples, of speedy and effective enforcement of any copyleft license against commercial entities?

Artifex seems to have had some good luck in the courts after many years of work. I mention Artifex mostly to point out that a search by an amateur like me doesn’t find much, perhaps some of the real experts on techdirt know the case law 🙂

guest says:

Re: Re: trump given 30 days ...

This feels like the time to recall Eben Moglen’s explanation that not one person has ever been sued for a GPL violation. Even once. That’s because the GPL is not a contract. There’s nothing to enforce. Whoever publishes GPL notices with the copied software has not "agreed" to anything. If the courts were to somehow "cancel/invalidate" a license, the risk of a lawsuit would not go away – much the opposite. Because a license cannot be "infringed". This was never the standing for filing. The hammer, known as COPYRIGHT law, falls very hard upon a violator who cannot point at a pre-existing document laying out the conditions under which copiers are pre-emptively granted PERMISSION to copy.

Fair Use is an "affirmative" defense, meaning it must be established in court – you can’t know (for sure) in advance of a lawsuit that your use will count as "fair". Less complicated pre-emptive permissions exist (look for phrases like "permission granted to use these materials in classrooms"), but that the GPL was written by a lawyer does not make it take the place of copyright law as the infringed agreement between parties.

Lostinlodos (profile) says:

Wrong license

Anyone here often knows I’m a supporter of the IDGAF methodology of licensing.

Too bad for Trump’s company here.

Should have used software from a freedom developer. Software licensed under a truly free for all form.
Such as Beer, or IDGAF, of COFFEE!

Because many of these copyleft licenses have become just another copyright headache.

Lostinlodos (profile) says:

Re: Re: Wrong license

I guess it depends on your personal activity.

One of the many things I do is build shells for CL programs. This comes my ever necessary need to tweak things. And it’s easier to do so with check boxes than modifications to chained scripts.
I can release the shell alone under any license, or release it with the CL app, in compliance with that app’s code. As soon as I take the steps to integrate them in single binary form I become tied.

It’s an issue you see come up for codecs a lot.
But what about proprietary changes to an OS? Or open office?

I’m not going to argue for or against commercial software. Or free software. I happily use both.

But I understand people wanting to build commercial over an open source base.
I see the same power grabs of ‘boards’ in “free” groups as commercial. There’s a bit of hypocrisy in saying your for freedom but turning and writing out restrictions. The OSaf, the FSF, the FOS groups.
We have dozens, many dozens, of incompatible “free” licenses. Each with its own restrictions on freedom.

One thing true liberty licensing has over the “free” method is actual complete freedom.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Wrong license

If you think copyleft is a problem, then don’t use code under that license.

But what about proprietary changes to an OS? Or open office?

You do not start with copyleft software if you want to develop it in a proprietary fashion. It is you problem to find a suitable base if that is what you want to do, rather than complain that copyleft software does not allow you to make and distribute proprietary versions.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Wrong license

"But what about proprietary changes to an OS? Or open office?"

What about them? Changes released under proprietary licences don’t directly affect the code that’s under the original licence so long as they’re done in a way that doesn’t violate the terms of the original licence, and if someone doesn’t like changes to OpenOffice they can fork it to avoid those changes, as others have done in the past.

"But I understand people wanting to build commercial over an open source base."

Most licenses allow you to do that, they’re just structured so you can’t steal and lock up the previously free code in order to add your changes.

"One thing true liberty licensing has over the “free” method is actual complete freedom."

Liberty and freedom aren’t free. They come with responsibilities, and they come with agreements among fellow citizens. It doesn’t matter how much you think your freedom allows you to shop in WalMart naked, you’re going to face consequences from other people, even if you somehow do it in a place where it’s not technically against the law.

Lostinlodos (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Wrong license

Rpeopleofwalmart
Rwalmartwatching
Rgirlsofwalmart
Rwalmartboys
Rwalmartgonewild

Lol.
Honestly though.
All I’m saying is that we now have a whole massive set of partly compatible licenses out there.

Some of them get quite bizarre. Like the research licensing.

And seriously: how many versions of the gpl exist? We have V 1,2,3, and lgol and agpl and lol suw, gl.

For those of us who actually try to abide by the ‘rules’ of all these differences it’s quite confusing.
I know it was a joke but a free survival horror game was released a while back under the lycan licence requiring changes only be submitted on full moons.
But something struck me with it (I can’t remember the name but it was a free giveawayoftheday and on torrent sites, something something moon)
We had reached the point of open licensing where we could poke fun at the volume of options.
That someone to the a few minutes to make a standalone survival-horror doom mod and release it under a joke license: maybe it’s time for consolidation?

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Wrong license

"And seriously: how many versions of the gpl exist?"

That doesn’t matter. Which version did you agree to release your code under, or use the code you decided to modify?

"We had reached the point of open licensing where we could poke fun at the volume of options"

We reached the point that many things in life can be parodied. But, parody doesn’t invalidate the thing being parodied. Also, that the thing being parodied in this case can be said to be the standard copyright licence itself since there’s so many ways around it, and maybe there’s a better solution.

Lostinlodos (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Wrong license

It’s more a facepalm premise.
It’s not uncommon to be looking for a solution and come across a bit about ‘we can’t do a binary because the 43 licences don’t line up’.

One aspect of ‘everyone can use it’ is lost: anyone.
There’s so much good software out there that will never go mainstream because people can’t download a binary.

Some adventurous people have come up with binary gui faqs and that works as an entry point. A point and click shell for doing all the building and pointing and linking.
These are not solutions though. Rather bandaids on a broken system.

If you can grasp what I’m trying to say.
Copy left has become just as heavy controlled as right.

nasch (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Wrong license

It’s not uncommon to be looking for a solution and come across a bit about ‘we can’t do a binary because the 43 licences don’t line up’.

What do you mean by "do a binary"?

If you can grasp what I’m trying to say. Copy left has become just as heavy controlled as right.

I don’t think I can. You seem to be complaining that many projects only release source and not binaries (which is true). But what does that have to do with "heavy control"?

Lostinlodos (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Wrong license

“We are unable to release a binary due to licensing restrictions” is more common than it should be.

Not being able to combine everything into one simple package is a huge stumbling block.
One that’s self inflicted.

It keeps free in the dark. Out of the general public.

Jain and joe don’t care. They click ok I agree and move on.

The whole point of the movement was keeping things open. But when 99 people out of 100 can’t download, and run… they look somewhere else.
AMP and LAMP and DAMP and now I have a cramp.
Open server and free server and my server and.

We don’t get complete working packages out to the public.
Look at video processing.
How many different libraries do you need to manually install to build a working platform. Go here for this. Go there for that.

Incompatibility in licensing is why Linux isn’t install and go. Or BSD or … for that matter.
Dependencies. And dependant dependencies.
And you can’t get that at this repository because of blank that we don’t like.

Sure. Track down every separate aspect and build from source. The public won’t do that when there’s an alternative.

nasch (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:7 Wrong license

“We are unable to release a binary due to licensing restrictions” is more common than it should be.

Release a binary of an open source package/project? Nothing stopping you, go right ahead. Release a binary of your own software? If you’re violating an open source license, then yeah that’s by design. You should not be allowed to release that binary (or anything else) without complying with the license. Is there a third thing that you mean by that?

Not being able to combine everything into one simple package is a huge stumbling block.

What restriction are you talking about? You can combine anything you want, as long as you follow the license(s).

Incompatibility in licensing is why Linux isn’t install and go.

I don’t know what you mean. Download a distro, install, and go. If you need more software, install it. It’s that simple.

Dependencies. And dependant dependencies.

Dependency managers manage that for you. If you install something, and it has dependencies, it will install those too.

And you can’t get that at this repository because of blank that we don’t like.

If you’re at the level of what repository something is at, you’re probably a software developer and should be able to deal with this stuff. Normally you just go to the package manager and search for a program.

Track down every separate aspect and build from source.

Again, not a licensing issue. That’s just people not choosing to release binaries.

Lostinlodos (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:8 Wrong license

Here’s a quick example:

Unfortunately due to circumstances beyond our control we can no longer include binary distributions of HandBrake which include the FDK-AAC encoder. Please also be aware that if you are distributing any previous 0.10.x you must cease doing so now due to licensing issues. Handbrake: News, from Feb 11, 2016

One of the top ones that comes up.

Lostinlodos (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:10 Wrong license

Where I came across it was in building out a compression utility. A 7zip style all in one only to find the licences didn’t line up.

Gpl, lgpl, v1 2 3, Apache, MIT, MPL, APSL, PD, FS, CC…!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_free_and_open-source_software_licences

Making things work together gets really complicated really quickly when making something that attempts to combine like things.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:9 Wrong license

"There is a dispute about whether the FDK license is GPL compatible or not. Unfortunately due to a copyright complaint from ffmpeg and the disputed nature of the FDK AAC encoder license we are no longer able to provide it."

So, it’s lawyers arguing about a specific licencing combination, and someone deciding to play it safe in case there’s a problem, not because the courts has found that there is a problem.

Frustrating, but you’ll have to pirate your DVDs elsewhere for now.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:7 Wrong license

"Incompatibility in licensing is why Linux isn’t install and go"

Depends on where you want to go. I’ve installed literal thousands of machines this year and never had a single problem. Granted, I’m not trying to play games or do a handful of desktop focussed things that aren’t supported by particular developers, but I really have never had a problem. I also can’t remember the last time I came across a dependency issue, but then I do know what I’m actually doing.

Lostinlodos (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:8 Wrong license

…but then I do know what I’m actually doing.

Bingo!
The general public, honestly, doesn’t.
And as soon as something pops up and say”…requires xyzabc”
They google or bing or duck their way to gh or sf and to “oh my”.
How many can actually pull source and compile it?
And why is it in source? More often than not it’s licensing.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:9 Wrong license

"And as soon as something pops up and say”…requires xyzabc”
They google or bing or duck their way to gh or sf and to “oh my”."

So same as on Windows or MacOS or Android. The only OS that doesn’t have this problem in most cases is iOS, and that’s only because it’s designed to only allow one way to install a package. Any end user who gets confused about why their officially sourced binary isn’t installing is going to have the same issues apart from that, no matter which OS they’re using.

"How many can actually pull source and compile it?"

Probably not many, but then I also can’t think of the last time I had to do that either. That was a tired old trope for when people wanted to pretend that it was i impossible to use Linux as a desktop OS, but most people are just going to use the distro’s package manager. Then, they’re far more likely to come across a situation where they want to run a specific program that doesn’t have any Linux support at all than they are to start having to wonder about licences.

Licence issues are for packagers and developers, end users don’t care about them in the same way they don’t care about the licence their Windows binary is packaged under.

Lostinlodos (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:10 Wrong license

I generally agree with you.

Would just be nice to see some level of consolidation. But that’s highly unlikely.

Licence issues are for packagers and developers

Which was exactly where I started this.
My inability to combine compiled code into a single package.

PMs are great. But the process takes longer than just double clicking, hitting ok and being done.

I just wonder how many things have the Djvu ending. Where the inability to roll a complete package killed the format.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:11 Wrong licens

"Which was exactly where I started this."

Yes, but then you started attacking Linux directly on all sorts of angles that aren’t necessarily related to reality, and certainly not in the context of individual third party applications that have the same problems on other OSes.

"My inability to combine compiled code into a single package."

You can compile whatever you want, you might just not be able to legally distribute the final product.

Lostinlodos (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:12 Wrong li

Actually I was attacking licenses in relation to use of Unix derivative distributions.

In my very specific most recent case my inability to distribute a binary recomp of px7z with extensions and a rudimentary gui as a prebuilt binary for MacOS/i…
Though it’s a constant problem with A/V codecs

The idea of freedoms and liberty was lost along the way somewhere.
Because it turns double click into:
Fnd, cmp, mod, ext, bld, mv, reg, lnk,
Because that excludes the 99%: including my target who don’t want to use the terminal/command line.

Submission rejected: license incompatibility. Do you wish to continue.
Sure I can host the source but it generally totally defeats the purpose.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:13 Wron

"The idea of freedoms and liberty was lost along the way somewhere."

No, it didn’t, you just dislike the terms of the licence that the originator of a project has applied to it. You have many options here, from requesting those people change the licence to forking or otherwise imitating the code you wish to reuse. A lot of major FOSS projects started life as a way to do something in ways that existing projects didn’t allow them to do.

As the saying goes, freedom isn’t free, and it’s not the removal of your freedoms if the owner of property decides to protect it with a condition of use you dislike. It’s unfortunate that some supposedly open licences aren’t compatible with each other, but the average end user won’t know about any of this, as they don’t know about all the wrangling that goes on behind the scenes with proprietary software.

"Sure I can host the source but it generally totally defeats the purpose."

Again, I can’t speak to the full issue here as I don’t know the exact details of the project, but it sure sounds to me that you have the ability to comply with the licence, you just choose not to.

If you want to push for more open licences to be used in more projects, or the copyright protections afforded to software in general to be changed, I’m all for it. But, it’s not a removal of your liberty than someone else’s property isn’t available to you in the way you’d prefer.

Lostinlodos (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:14 Re:

😉

I’m with you across the board.

Again, I can’t speak to the full issue here as I don’t know the exact details of the project,

Actually in this case I probably can’t.
The 7z ports have been quite an issue mainly because competing compression algorithms are licensed differently.
The author of 7zip has already reached the most inclusion that is possible in binary form.

If I was smart I would have looked into things deeper. Instead I tried to route around it by including a compile/build command in the package to build on demand. And included the source.

I tried to mimic qqCompress but it turns out in typical fashion for less, er, regulated Chinese software qq just didn’t care about licensing.
QQ is quite complete but difficult to find on the open web.
And still fails to include a gui. Nor include xx, ux, ice, 7z, or pea.

So ultimately I submitted the gui alone to the Ports projects for testing and distribution.
And a compile on request source and string post.

But it leaves me shaking my head. Saying are you serious.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...