@AnimalsDream@slrpnk.net

comments

• The restrictions on commercial use are what make it unqualified as an open-source license.

  on Open Source Printer coming before 2027 in c/opensource@lemmy.ml · 3d ago

• Also why are they using a content license for software and hardware? We need to create an online course that teaches people how not to suck at doing foss… and then license that course with a eula, cause that would be so fucking funny.

  on Open Source Printer coming before 2027 in c/opensource@lemmy.ml · 5d ago

• No they’re right, cc-nc-sa is not open source or freedom respecting.

  Edit: I’ll elaborate. The core principles of the free software movement will follow. All other definitions not only do not conflict with this basic definition, but often expand on it with additional rights expectations. The Four Freedoms:

  • The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0).

  • The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1).

  • Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

  • The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help others (freedom 2).

  • The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

  Restrictions on commercial use are a suppression on freedoms 2 and 3, and notably (at least as far as I’m aware), none of the licenses to come out of the FSF have commercial restrictions.

  And in the Open-Source definition, it’s literally in rule 1:

  1. Free Redistribution

  The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale.

  on Open Source Printer coming before 2027 in c/opensource@lemmy.ml · 5d ago

• 

  on Blew My Mind Into Orbit in c/linuxmemes@lemmy.world · 14 Sep 2026

• I appreciate that you took what I said in good faith. I don’t know if I’m just failing to properly convey - I understand that when, say, you purchase a physical book, you own that thing. That’s because it is a thing, your one copy, a finite object. You do have limited rights to resell it too.

  But what I’m trying to get at is, within copyright law as it exists now (and pretty much ever so far), even though you own that physical object itself, because it is bound with a copyrighted work, in a sense you actually do not even own that book. it’s because when you purchase a copyrighted work, what you have done in the eyes of the law is that you have purchased a limited use license. Your rights with that book are still restricted by that copyright.

  I’m not trying to say that’s how things should be. I just think it matters to understand how things really are, if we’re inclined to want to change them for the better. Courts are not going to be able to go far enough to create the kinds of reforms that are wanted in the Stop Killing Games movement. It’s going to need new legislations.

  on Wiki Documents at Least 44 Instances in Which Sony Says You Own Your Games in c/games@lemmy.world · 14 Sep 2026

• It won’t radicalize me against copyright because I believe people are entitled to profit from their creations

  One, in a capitalist society, the only thing that entitles you to profit from your work is the completion of a sale. I can draw a crude picture of a turd right now, and despite suddenly becoming an artist, I am not automatically entitled to profit. Two, copyright does not help artists profit. It allows the biggest corporations to consolidate media ownership in their names. By contrast, the internet, which has allowed the free sharing of media on a scale that completely eclipses any other time in history, has allowed more artists than ever to profit from their work. If you care about artists making a living, then you should support information freedom. If you prefer concentrating wealth and media control into one small racket, then yeah I guess copyright is your thing.

  You can’t have your cake and eat it too. Either you want to reform the legal framework into something equitable, or you can keep bitching about the excesses of the evil corporations for doing the same bullshit they’ve always been doing, while still wanting the same laws that make them what they are to begin with.

  And meanwhile, you’re having this argument on a free and open-source platform… why?

  on Wiki Documents at Least 44 Instances in Which Sony Says You Own Your Games in c/games@lemmy.world · 14 Sep 2026

• Here, since you avoided my question, I’ll just spell it out for you.

  What You Actually Bought: A License

  In most transactions, you buy a license, not the copyright. A license is formal permission to use the work under specific conditions. It defines where, how, and for how long you can use the content.

  Many people assume payment equals ownership because that logic applies to physical goods. But copyright law works differently. Under U.S. law, copyright ownership automatically belongs to the original creator, regardless of who paid for the project.

  Sorry, but you do NOT own any of the copyrighted works that have ever been given to you or purchased. They are all licensed with limited usage rights. I pointed out the first sale doctrine to highlight it as a very narrow exception to the norm of licensing. That exception was born of the necessity to balance the reasonable needs of individuals (and of course the used market as a whole), with the purported needs of media rightsholders. Even if that supreme court decision (which was later codified into law) grants one additional right for a person to make a resale of the finite copies of physical goods they purchased legally, even then you still do not own that product, because a plethora of other restrictions still apply.

  Copyright law is in need of serious reform. Pretending it is whatever you want it to be doesn’t magically put it on your side. That’s exactly why scammy companies like Microsoft, Nintendo, EA, and Sony can keep getting away with all their bullshit - the law tends to be on their side whether you like it or not, cause guess who it was written for.

  on Wiki Documents at Least 44 Instances in Which Sony Says You Own Your Games in c/games@lemmy.world · 14 Sep 2026

• Lemmy is too small? Can’t know til you try, we got any dating communities here?

  on Dating Apps Are Dying in c/technology@lemmy.world · 14 Sep 2026

• I remember using MyYearBook back when it was called that (I think it was changed to something like MeetMe or whatever, last I heard), and had a fair bit of fun on that site when I was younger. It was chaotic, super broken, was kind of like a really bloated MySpace, and what really made it fun is that they incorporated a whole plethora of mini-games to match with people in fun ways.

  It kind of seems like a lot of platforms now days, both for dating, as well as games want to restrict communications, if that makes any sense? Like in a lot of online games, you might not even be able to open a text chat, and can only communicate through pre-defined gestures. And dating sites seem to want to put abstractions like swiping and questionnaires before any dialogues take place. And maybe for good reason.

  There’s just a kind of fun in things like the classic chatrooms that I miss I guess. Just make your profile, do some shitposting until people start dropping ASL’s into your DM’s, and go from there.

  Chatroom style ones like Discord can still work okay except for the part where you gotta use Discord.

  on Dating Apps Are Dying in c/technology@lemmy.world · 14 Sep 2026

• Please show me where it says that purchasing a copyrighted work grants ownership of it.

  on Wiki Documents at Least 44 Instances in Which Sony Says You Own Your Games in c/games@lemmy.world · 13 Sep 2026

• You own the physical thing, but you’re still only licensing the copy of the work, and agreeing to that license on purchase. Lookup the first sale doctrine. Your ability to resell used copyrighted works literally hinges on a supreme court decision.

  What I’m trying to get at is, this should not only aggravate us towards Sony. It should radicalize you against Copyright.

  en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-culture_movement

  on Wiki Documents at Least 44 Instances in Which Sony Says You Own Your Games in c/games@lemmy.world · 13 Sep 2026

• It’s not a take, dude. It’s literally just what the law is.

  on Wiki Documents at Least 44 Instances in Which Sony Says You Own Your Games in c/games@lemmy.world · 13 Sep 2026

• It’s kind of funny how everyone is up in arms about this now (and for good reasons), when like, that’s how copyright has always worked? You don’t own anything that’s copyrighted, except for what you yourself create and get a copy-monopoly on.

  on Wiki Documents at Least 44 Instances in Which Sony Says You Own Your Games in c/games@lemmy.world · 12 Sep 2026

• Non-issue. I just scatter fragments of my data across so many devices that some version of something is bound to be somewhere. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

  on YOLO in c/linuxmemes@lemmy.world · 22 Aug 2026

• Also, fuck Proton.

  on it's been a while since i made one (or even thought about this) but here is my latest PrivacyPack list! in c/privacy@lemmy.ml · 15 Aug 2026

• This setup is telling me you’re spending too much time on computers. Consider a hobby where you make something with your hands, using tools that aren’t electrified.

  on it's been a while since i made one (or even thought about this) but here is my latest PrivacyPack list! in c/privacy@lemmy.ml · 15 Aug 2026

• Y’all are running your PC’s un-airgapped?

  on scripts? in c/linuxmemes@lemmy.world · 15 Aug 2026

• Nano is too barebones. I just want the tui equivalent of Gedit or Kwrite or something.

  on intimidating in c/linuxmemes@lemmy.world · 10 Aug 2026