this post was submitted on 01 Dec 2023
18 points (90.9% liked)

Open Source

31256 readers
260 users here now

All about open source! Feel free to ask questions, and share news, and interesting stuff!

Useful Links

Rules

Related Communities

Community icon from opensource.org, but we are not affiliated with them.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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
[–] 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.