How about Pinker? You dig Pinker? I am not delving in the books of this jester without a little wager. Just tell me any linguist you esteem, they probably state somewhere that English is a peculiar language. Then you’ll strip for Lemmy if you are wrong mf.

Well, my bad. I meant CC-BY-ND.

The rest of your word salad isn’t even worth responding to.

Now go refute my other arguments, which totally refute your fallacious statement that open source entails copyleft because Richard Stoolman wants it that way. Let’s not discuss what other things he wants his way, lol.

Thanks for manspreading this point for me. You see in this earlier comment (before I had the displeasure of meeting you), I demonstrate knowledge of this fact. Therefore, removed my removed.

Thanks for the tip, but I would appreciate if you actually read the post. TL;DR I do mention its Nazi issue.

“/c/[insert_community_name]” is not necessarily linking that community, only invoking it to illustrate a point. “Badlinguistics” was a popular community on the other website for discussing comments like yours.

Well here it is not that popular. It has two members and since you are not the mod, you are probably the one. Since there are no posts why don’t you write proper essays instead of attacking random people on Lemmy. I am not gonna respond to this shit.

English is a human language, ok fucker? But it is an uncommon one, thus making it hard to generalize from English to other languages. This is well known in linguistics. I would bother to get you some quote, but I prefer to leave you seething here.

the notion that I wrote anything resembling “by definition every open source license is a copyleft license” is nonsense

Let’s see.

“Open Source” is a term coined by the Open Source Initiative, and they control its definition. Every license that counts as “Open Source” according to OSI also counts as Free Software according to the Free Software Foundation.

This is the same thing. To quote someone very important:

Words have meanings. You don’t get to just change them and pretend they mean the same things when they don’t!

You can make derivative works with CC-BY-SA.

No.

No, copyright law itself restricts people from sharing code. “Open Source” or “Free Software” licenses relax those restrictions. Restrictions are never added by the license, only conditions limiting when they may be relaxed.

This is exactly why copyleft licenses are now implemented within the context of intellectual property law. You can’t have a socialist biodome specifically for code.

CC-BY-SA is also not, in fact, “Open Source” because it doesn’t appear on the list of OSI-approved Open Source licenses.

Any license that prohibits modification will do. As any license that prohibits redistribution under a closed license will also do.

EDIT: “do” = to refute your statement, from which you just so vehemently distanced yourself, lmao

Every license that counts as “Open Source” according to OSI also counts as Free Software according to the Free Software Foundation.

Who is not authoritative on the issue. I might agree with the spirit of your comment, but I think it messes up an “ought to” with an “is a”. Let’s replay this: Every open source license should be a copyleft license. Sure! It should. Like all property should belong to the community.

But as it is right now, the creator has intellectual property on the code. They may choose to reserve none or some rights on it. But as long as F/L/OSS is defined within the framework of intellectual property, it is not true that “by definition every open source license is a copyleft license”. This is a fallacy.

(Sorry I wouldn’t bother to use the same terms you used. I mean the same things though.)

Any licenses that restrict what you can do are neither

I am not so sure. What about CC-BY-SA? Open source, share-alike, but restricts modifying the code. More broadly, from the start CC licenses were described as “Some rights reserved”.

Libre software restricts people from sharing code under another closed license. So I think that your statement is not correct either. FLOSS licenses can very much restrict what you can do, and do so very regularly.

This is not correct. In typical use, copyleft means that you have to redistribute it as free software (GPL and variations). The opposite is “permissive”, you can use the software commercially, and charge others to use it as closed source. Copyleft is good for developers, permissive is good for companies.

So “free as in speech” is not even a good analogy. “Liberated” is more like it, perhaps I will start using libre more strictly…

Well, I look up the community, no posts. I look up your post history, your sole contributions are calls for a badlinguistics community, or calling out comments for being badlinguistics. I find your crusade rather amusing, and I am here to respond to any possible criticism you have about my greatlinguistics.

If you’re using Gentoo, no nerd will tell you to switch to another distro.

Funny! Lmao

And this is no accident, as the cursing of that girl in Hogsmeade was no accident: These people are on the same camp with Joane…

Ambiguity is inherent in all human languages, agreed. But English is one of the most fucked up languages, and in many ways different than most other languages.

Possible reason: it is a hybrid language over-prescribed by racist and classist institutions, which currently serves as a lingua-franca and still rapidly evolves because of all the tech and marketing that happens in the US (in other words, what the fuck is a “slopometer”).

I am probably just old, but I remember the days when “free as in speech, not free as in beer” was enough explanation.

The legal scholars at Heritage Foundation give me the creeps more than their ICE stormtroopers. They exploit the very concepts they despise, in order to criminalize supporters of human rights. For example, transgender inclusion in high school sports? Title IX violation. Affirmative action? Selective bias against white men. Undercover informants in the Proud Boys? Supporting hate-groups. When they themselves do not consider them to be hate groups. This really grinds my gears with these fascists.

Speaking of undercover informants

Anyhow, this is gonna play out in court. Given that not all federal judges have capitulated to the White Supremacist’s House it can go both ways. It is actually a good reminder to donate to them (I have been procrastinating…)

Well, it is a bit far-fetched. Don’t you think?

“The SPLC was not dismantling these groups. It was instead manufacturing the extremism it purports to oppose by paying sources to stoke racial hatred,” Blanche said.

The SPLC said it “will vigorously defend ourselves, our staff, and our work” against what it described as false allegations. The group said its informant program saved lives.

“Taking on violent hate and extremist groups is among the most dangerous work there is, and we believe it is also among the most important work we do,” interim CEO and president Bryan Fair said in a statement.

Well, now the most extremist of these groups is the US Government. The authoritarian power grab continues.

Hey, not two days ago someone said that connections between Peter Thiel and age verification was a “conspiracy theory”. Apart from the above link, the article states:

And as these mandates create a captive market worth billions of dollars, a whole ecosystem of venture-backed “identity-as-a-service” startups has sprung up to serve it. Persona, valued at $2 billion and backed by Peter Thiel’s investment network, is just one of many.

Unrelated to the above, but I like the wording too much:

“Child safety” has simply become the marketing department for a rent-seeking surveillance industry.

A note on the US v EU thing

Is this an US-only thing? There are several articles over the past few months hinting at US Big-Tech lobbying efforts in the EU. Thiel makes a living as a contractor of the surveillance apparatus. It is only in his interest to expand his business in the highly regulated EU, and I have not even started on his Dark Enlightment politics.

von der Leyen has no spine in this, if she isn’t actively complicit.

Let’s say this is the official narrative. My argument:

1. Meta stands to consolidate power and revenue from further mapping devices to real people.
2. Meta was also originally backed by Peter Thiel, who trades in data mining for secret services, now much more energetically. Zuckerberg is a sexist idiot and his app had no more merit than MySpace. Thiel saw the potential of mapping real idenities to online behavior, and it is no accident Palantir was later implicated in Cambridge Analytica.
3. A redditor came up with concrete data that others have already posted, that show that Meta’s dark money are all over this case. As for the fine you say that completely explains this, is a very modest for Meta, who is used to pay such fines as a cost of doing business.
4. Amongst the orgs taking Meta’s money to push this are many conservative organizations, like Heritage but also others (anti-sex, anti-abortion, and anti-trans organizations), who know that these laws will effectively suppress speech. Much like the trans moral panics, the laws are not as stupid as they appear, but carefully designed to obliquely achieve their goals (e.g. police bodies with wombs, in line with the same orgs’ anti-abortion positions).
5. Governments watch closely as the new corporatist technofascism undoes regulations and checks and balances. They stand to gain from the turmoil and increase their surveillance capabilities even more. Alternatively, some EU goverments might be thinking that this is a way to stick it to US tech monopolies that brainwash their constituents, but they are wrong.
6. In fact, the approach and outcomes hints toward government contractors in cahoots with surveillance agencies, that it would be surprising if there is no adjacency to Analytica personnel and/or the benefits for state actors and spooks are just an unplanned side-effect.

Conclusion: There is sufficient basis to consider that the official narrative is not the whole story.