Hi, I am currently working on a website I plan to release under the GPL3 license. I was wondering what copyright notice I should put in the footer of the web page. The notice I currently have is "Copyright 2023 ", but I do not know if this conflicts with the GPL licence. Should I change it to something like "Copyright 2023 contributers"?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] toastal@lemmy.ml 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

GNU does not own a monopoly on the definition of free software. It wouldn’t be hard to argue that capitalist exploitation of the commons ruins the freedoms many would like to see.

[–] intrepid@lemmy.ca 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

GNU does not own a monopoly on the definition of free software.

Terming it as a 'monopoly' doesn't invalidate what it is. FSF's definition of Free software is what's accepted as canonical definition of free software - just as OSI's definition is accepted as the definition of open source. The entire analysis of FOSS ecosystem is based on these definitions. It's not open to interpretation. You can't claim victory by insisting on accepting a falsehood as the truth.

It wouldn’t be hard to argue that capitalist exploitation of the commons ruins the freedoms many would like to see.

That's not an excuse for misrepresenting the motives of a project. If you don't want capitalists not using your work, you're free to restrict that. What you are not free to do is to claim it as free software. You can't have it both ways.

[–] toastal@lemmy.ml 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Yet folks often say their $0 software is free software because gratis. Words evolve/change & only mean what the folks think it means. If anyone wanted to take over a word, they could. To say it’s not open to interpretation is silly. To assume the ideas they first put out long ago never need a revision or update or were infallible missing no changes to software/society is a religion. Right now we see folks come to terms that outside GPL, a lot of code is being used for AI training models & then sold while not giving users a hint at who wrote it or where to get the source. These ideas probably need to change & projects like Peer Production or Blue Oak or License Zero feel they want to actually take on your enshrined terms like “free” & “open source” because there is not a better word to describe what they are proposing, then I don’t see a problem other than possible confusion (but folks might be confused either way like saying those licenses are nonfree just because a for-profit entity can’t use even if individuals, collectives, nonprofits can).

[–] intrepid@lemmy.ca 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Yet folks often say their $0 software is free software because gratis. Words evolve/change & only mean what the folks think it means.

You are still continuing to question a well defined standard meaning over vague technicalities. Lack of gratis/libre separation is an English language problem. That is no excuse to hijack a standard terminology when a better term like 'source available' is present. The only reason for insisting on such hijacks is for deliberate misdirection and exploitation.

To say it’s not open to interpretation is silly.

Oh! So you are going to interpret the meaning of a dollar? Or the size of a legal sized paper? After all, they are centralized definitions and you don't subscribe to any of those. If saying it's not open to interpretation is silly, insisting on absence of standard definitions is sheer stupidity.

To assume the ideas they first put out long ago never need a revision or update or were infallible missing no changes to software/society is a religion.

You are still beating around the bush. Standardization is necessary. If that's a religion, it's much more acceptable to a world where people live like cave animals who can't communicate anything meaningfully due to lack of agreed upon standard terms.

they want to actually take on your enshrined terms like “free” & “open source” because there is not a better word to describe what they are proposing, then I don’t see a problem other than possible confusion

my enshrined terms? LOL! I gave very well defined and well known places where they are defined. Instead, your kind resort to misdirection and dishonesty to exploit established norms. Somebody doing AI training is merely an excuse to justify such malpractices. A tactic those AI companies pioneered and you share with them.

[–] toastal@lemmy.ml 1 points 10 months ago

AGPL restricts freedoms in response to exploitation of the cloud providers. It was & still is met with criticism due to additional restrictions. If blocking that exploration is fine, what’s wrong with extending that to non-libre LLMs? What wrong with going to the root of this issue & cut out the for profits? All I want to see is that “FOSS” isn’t standardized in the way a commodity is but is free to evolve in response to these exploitations to the commons & creators/maintainers. To do that, the rules need to adapt like sports do for safety, etc.