Since when does Stallman celebrate coercive tech censorship? What happened to the world?
[1/3] https://techcrunch.com/2024/06/09/new-york-moves-to-limit-kids-access-to-addictive-feeds/
New York State is about to prohibit communication platforms from offering user's-history-dependent feeds to users under age 18. I think this policy is very wise, but limiting it to only some users, based on their age, is misguided. Millions of adults have been sucked into conspiracy …
Discussion
Stallman has always been sus
Why did he call his opposite of copyright "copyleft" when the correct thing would have been "copywrong?"
That's not a pun, it's the core reason you can't trust him if you think about it
"Copywrongs" also happens to be the title of a great Samuel Edward Konkin essay!
Gave it a look.
In the context of Stallman's "copyleft" licenses (pretending "right" was a direction or a political orientation), "copywrong" would be licenses which do not grant any permission.
These would allow open source software to flourish freely with the copyright system falling apart.
Instead, Stallman made a dumb pun and helped uphold a system that says Apple and Microsoft are allowed to use any code they want and use violence against anyone who tries to use code they say is theirs
I wonder what you think of the license I wrote and we use at my company (our company is called Vaporware)?
https://github.com/deathtothecorporation/vaporware-license/blob/master/LICENSE
A court would probably find your work under this license is functionally the same as public domain, except maybe the part about changing the name means you're keeping rights for a particular branding.
That's pretty good, public domain is like the pure legitimate version of what Stallman was going for anyway.
GitHub might not allow a copywrong license to stay on their site, at least not forever, since it prohibits them from doing so; except a court would actually probably rule against the license and say the code can be used, which is exactly how the copyright system falls apart. Apple uses your code and violates your license and instead of losing a lawsuit against Apple where you got your hopes up about the court not lying, you're like "yeah, courts don't recognize the copywrong license, nothing we can do about it except rebel against the courts and use Apple's proprietary code without their permission too"
Yep! It's modeled after public domain / CC, just a little more fun.
And the part about changing the name is wrt the license itself, not the work it covers.
I don't care if Apple uses my code. I hope they do, but I suspect they won't. We have.. different goals.
The copywrong license pretends to care if Apple uses your code, but actually forces apple not to care if you use their code (or brand name or whatever) after they use yours. (With Apple just being an example)
The copywrong license loses in court every time, but just sucks for the court system's ability to influence humans outside the courthouse