that reminds me of a famous wordplay: "exporting is what matters" comes out as "exportar é o que importa"
Alexandre Oliva (lxo@gnusocial.jp)'s status on Monday, 18-Nov-2024 16:33:01 EST
Alexandre Olivacopyleft really doesn't restrict, copyright does. copyleft only delimits the permissions so that everyone can do whatever they wish with the software (freedom), but without granting them power to deny that freedom of others (power). without that grant, they can't abuse others because copyright won't allow them: that power remains reserved to authors, as even democratic societies adopted.
now, "use" is a loaded term. a lot of laypeople people misunderstand that as running, but under copyright law, it means adapting, modifying, using parts or the whole of the work to make others. enjoying the work (reading, listening, watching, running) are not reserved. this means copyright law does NOT empower author-itarians to dictate terms of use (execution), only terms of use (adapt, modify). that's why those who wish to dictate such terms resort to contracts (AKA licensing agreements) that, along with permissions to do activities that copyright law reserves exclusively to authors, establish obligations that are alien to copyrights, and require explicit assent, such as click on "I agree", breaking a seal or such.
now, not taking their patches, or not even looking at them, may be foolish. they may have valuable contributions to make, even if operating under oppressive regimes, or even while holding repproachable ideas in their minds. someone once said something about hating the sin, not the sinner; someone more laic said something about not imposing collective punishments. human rights that people often forget when they're driven by (under influence of) propaganda and moral panics
this is exactly where the attempted analogy with copyleft falls apart: copyright law, widely adopted in democratic societies (to my dismay, but that's another long story), grants authors powers to stop anyone else from adapting, distributing and publishing works of their authorship. copyleft gives up these powers, enabling downstream recipients to have freedom, so that they can control their own computing and do whatever they wish with the software. but copyleft does not grant intermediaries power to deny freedoms of downstream recipients. it doesn't prohibit that either: copyright does. remove copyright, and copyleft becomes ineffective: nobody would need a license to adapt or distribute any more, so the delimitations to the permissions put forth in the license text are irrelevant. that's a feature, not a bug.
but unethical-source licenses exploit another bug, in people's understanding of how copyright works. people have been misled to believe that a license is required to run software, and laypeople, misguided by that belief, have tried to apply copyleft-like constraints to something that is not exclusively reserved to authors. when it comes to running software, copyright law only requires that the copy be obtained legally, so the provisions in unethical-source licenses that attempt to constrain the right to execute are about as inoperant as copyleft would be under no copyright.
so, you see, it's a misguided analogy because it purports to impose in an author-itarian way something that societies should adopt democratically and collectively; it's a false analogy because it fails to understand the primary purpose of enabling and respecting freedom and autonomy, disabling and countering an unjust law no further than needed to that end, while leaving the effects of the unjust law in place to not empower abusers; and it's broken because, failing to understand how copyright and copyleft work, unethical-source licenses are ineffective, misleading, and fail entirely to serve their stated purpose.
imposing values and behavior though the software is exactly the control and colonization I'm getting at
it's not a given that people can choose not to use the software, as many programs are imposed taxing software
but even if they can opt out, it is still the case that you stand for imposing values, controlling and colonizing users through the software they use.
those who opt out don't use the software, so they're not (your) users, and that's exactly what they need to do to defend freedom
whereas all those who choose to use the software licensed under such abusive terms are indeed controlled and colonized, because of the terms it imposes in a misguided, false and broken analogy with copyleft. I can elaborate on why the analogy is misguided, false and broken if you wish.
Alexandre Oliva (lxo@gnusocial.jp)'s status on Sunday, 17-Nov-2024 02:46:58 EST
Alexandre Olivaah, puxa, desculpe, eu era bem carnívoro na época que ia lá, não sei se eles conseguem atender bem a vegetarianos. eu ainda como carne às vezes, mais do que eu gostaria (enquanto open vegan, considero-me uma fraude), mas essa transição, mesmo parcial, é relativamente recente. já não vou lá há vários anos, certamente a última vez foi um bom tempo antes da pandemia. mas a lembrança de que comi coisas deliciosas lá ficou.