>>11843 >wait thats not copyright. thats ownership isnt it? It's both. You can transfer ownership and forgo copyright, but you can't legally invalidate your authorship, as long as it's authentically yours. >>11844 That's getting into a level legal maneuvering I have no interest in understanding Anon. Again, I'm not a lawyer, and obviously Google doesn't own the works authors voluntarily post there. They are simply exploiters (a pretty typical approach for the globohomo, yes?)

>>11845 ok this is just confusing and somehow not clear enough despite its importance

>>11846 Heh, I'm sure lawyers would be quite pleased to hear you say that Anon. Good for their businesses, right? So, I'm going to migrate this conversation over to the licensing thread, as we're well off-topic here -- even for a shitposting bread! :^) >=== -add '/relocated' tag

Leaving this here as it has a clear, relatively easy-to-understand comparison of various licenses out there. https://www.openbsd.org/policy.html

I use ISC. It's almost a BSD-2-Clause equivalent. First, the text is more brief. Second, it doesn't specifically say that the license text has to be distributed with both the source and the binary forms of the program, it only says it has to be distributed with "copies". I use it for the brevity. I've noticed some code that gets reimplemented over and over again, often poorly, so I started a project that tries to implement it properly with BSD-0-Clause which is derived from the ISC license but has its only 2 terms removed so it's public domain equivalent except it disclaims all warranties. I did it because I know even being told to copypaste the license text and to include it in releases is too much for some. The reason I use ISC over BSD-0-Clause in other projects is that there's some legal bullshit that says that if your warranty disclaimer isn't visible it doesn't count, and I assume nobody will go after my ass due to warranties, but that's no reason to stay vulnerable, so I use ISC unless I have a reason not to. Ideally, copyright wouldn't exist, but the ISC license is written using language humans can read, and it essentially says "do whatever you want I don't care as long as you copy this license text" which is not perfect but good enough. I'm seeding terabytes of infringed copyright on my torrent client right now. I wish there was a copyleft license that was compatible with 100% of free licenses. The idea behind copyleft is good, but the issue with copyleft licenses is that they end up cucking other FLOSS developers from using your software, and that's unacceptable. Working with every single FLOSS program like the permissive licenses do is a hard requirement for me. But really, if someone copypasted my ISC software and didn't give me credit I wouldn't care, I would even be happy someone is using something I made, I really just want copyright and its supporters to die, to reiterate: singular reason that "copy the loicense pls" tidbit is in the license I use is to cover my ass, but ultimately, I want people to do whatever the heck they want with their copies.

BTW, OpenWRT violates the shit of all the licenses and gets into 0 trouble for it. Go to the OpenWRT repositories right now and download any package, it's just a .tar.gz tarball with a different extesion. Look into the contents of the package: there is no license text anywhere. A lot of FLOSS licenses require that the license text be distributed with binary, but OpenWRT simply doesn't do it. I approve. OpenBSD does almost the same thing, they very rarely distribute the loicense, so they're violating the license of most of their packages with such a term.

>>16352 >I use ISC. This is in essence just what OpenBSD advocates today. https://cvsweb.openbsd.org/src/share/misc/license.template?rev=HEAD

>>16352 >related https://opensource.org/licenses/ISC

>discussion-related > (>>16429, >>16431, >>16526, >>16538, >>16549, >>16551)

I use CC-BY-NC-SA for everything. This allows people to use it freely in the same manner as GPL non-commercially but requires people to ask permission to use it commercially. You can always grant copyright to people outside of the license terms by releasing your work under a different license to specific people. The use of dual licenses allows you to forbid certain individuals and/or entities from using your work as you see fit on a case by case basis while not inhibiting anyone from merely contributing to your project.

>>11846 > this is just confusing and somehow not clear enough despite its importance If you wrote or invented something, that's a fact you can't change. You can only sign away the rights derived from that. >>16352 >ISC licence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISC_license (it's for software) related: >>16354 https://cvsweb.openbsd.org/src/share/misc/license.template >>16352 >I wish there was a copyleft license that was compatible with 100% of free licenses. The idea behind copyleft is good, but the issue with copyleft licenses is that they end up cucking other FLOSS developers from using your software Interesting. I know only some examples in the OpenSCAD program to be copyleft. Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-SA 4.0) is used for LulzBot (3D printer) https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/ Interesting addition: >Label the product as a clone. It must be clear that it is not a product from our factory. >Note that 'LulzBot is a registered trademark of Aleph Objects, Inc.' >Host your own copy of the source files on your own server or similar, even if they are unmodified. Do not just point to our existing source. https://lulzbot.com/learn/choosing-a-free-license-for-your-3d-project >>17426 >CC-BY-NC-SA Any further opinions on that? It's not a free licence. One problem I see, is that you would need to know these persons and they would be public or at least known to you. Which means no one could distribute a robowaifu part in secret without breaking the terms. Also, I could imagine there could later be laws that you are being held liable if you allow a licence to someone being a baddie. What I could imagine to do is to re-release files with only my own code later, which I improved to make them more usable and then use maybe such a licence for it. >>11291 I get the sentiment, but then the software I used is the same, and I don't really loose something by sharing it.

BTW, I'd like to discuss how we clearly & (importantly,) legally opensauce H/W design work. For instance, I'm planning on creating a prototype copper wire-wrapper that will enable anon to 3D-print the frames for, then fully wrap the copper into, his own garage-manufactured BLDC actuators. Will the MIT (Expat) license also cover these sort of machine designs as well? >=== -minor edit

>>20691 Thanks kindly, NoidoDev!

Hey Chobitsu, sorry I forgot about this thread. For MaidCom, I'm thinking a Creative Commons Share Alike license could work well. It would allow you to license any derivative works under the MIT license. I just want to protect the rights of Anons to use it freely without worry about malicious copyright.

>>23627 Don't worry about it Kiwi, just do whatever you think best. You're in charge of the project! :^) And I'm honestly not trying to be pushy about this licensing issue...every anon is clearly free to do whatever he wants to with his efforts. My perspective is a quite different one than the norm, and I'm well-aware of that. Certainly no one has to follow my lead here haha. Looking forward to seeing your work Anon. Cheers. :^)

>>23627 What is malicious about copyright? What bug crawled up your ass?

>>20692 I think people are overthinking things. You can say it's in the public domain and you take no responsibility for anything related to it and then anyone can use it for whatever. I think all these different licenses are just the average human techo weenies obsession to over-complicate and optimize everything. I'm certainly guilty with my brilliant idea :) to use machines to make crocheted or knitted robowaifu skinsuits. Musk talked about this when he said a typical engineers behavior is to obsessively optimize something that with a few changes shouldn't be there in the first place.

>>23679 Well, I'm not disinclined to not disagree with you here, Anon :^); most licensing is garbage in essense. Yet the fact is that it's had a big impact on the real world. In some sense, it's still one of the very few things left holding the Globohomo back from their voracious squalor (which is highly-ironic if you think about that for 1 minute). I'm clearly of the 'information wants to be free' stripe, and I don't think that is likely to change for me in the general sense. But impugning obsession to detail is misguided IMO. Certainly we all have reason to give thanks that God is 'obsessed' with it! Life's DNA-RNA transcription mechanisms for instance, are marvels to behold. That attention to detail is what allows these mechanisms to thrive under the harsh conditions of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, and without which none of us would even be here. :^)

> webring convo -related : https://anon.cafe/agdg/res/486.html#902

>>28022 Because the only """credit""" I'm after with this first effort is from the Lord. What do I care what people think of me lol? Just give the stuff away and have done with it is my thinking. Simple as. The license is only even there in the first place as a necessary evil, b/c of the Globohomo and their armies of greedy lawyers. Otherwise everything here would be straight up public domain. >=== -minor edit

>>28023 I also did mention the don't be a dick license in one of my videos. That one is not enforceable but it still it'd be cc-by-nc-sa + don't be a dick license to drive the point across. Either way if it takes off it'll be copied by the chinese however the chinese rarely copy without seeing it be a market success in the west lol.

>>28024 okay on second thought. cc by sa be better cause. cc by sa + don't be a dick license. Also if all else fails ill send an army of robot waifus to destroy your property. Just kidding.

>>28024 >That one is not enforceable Actually, it probably is if you define your meanings sufficiently. For instance, I could legally create a 'White Males from Wisconsin -only' license (not that it wouldn't be laughed out of court during CY), same as another anon could create a 'Black Men from Zimbabwe -only' license. As long as the definitions and terms were clearly spelled-out, both licenses would be legally binding. >tl;dr 'NO GIRLS ALLOWED' license when? :D >=== -minor edit

>>28048 Anon you should have told me earlier you wanted to have the white men from Wisconsin license instead wasting my time. How about the smelling your own farts license+white men from Wisconsin dual license.

>>28050 Kek.

I'm aware of the usual talking point for both pro or anti BSD like or GPL. (Iv skimmed the thread) Currently I’m biased towards the GPL. The main reason being is that it tends to scare off globe homo corporations and I think it really does benefit its users. But the reason why I bring up the question of licensing is because is also seems to upset other open source developers that are using "more free" licenses and it’s giving me concerns that this could lead to wasted potential and duplicate work. I don’t have a problem with other developers making money. I get it we all have to eat and funding tends to be an unsolved problem in the open source space. But my problem with the BSD likes is that it doesn’t prevent the creation of abusive software and that’s where my worries sit. A naive part of me wishes that software engineers would have something akin to the Hippocratic oath that doctors have. Our current world would be a much better one if sometimes a developer would say no to the nasty things globo homo does. My biggest fear is having my work be consumed, extended and overshadowed to contribute to something that I would hate. What’s funny is that not publishing my work does keep it safe from globohomo. In some odd way keeping it closed would prevent this. But then I would be a hypocrite and doing every user a disservice. If I was a user I would never run my own software, iv spent almost a decade only computing using free software. I do hope to spread robowaifus, but if they are subverted I feel it’s worse to spread it then it not existing. I guess this is where people will disagree with me. Is there a balance to be struck here, I understand the emotions of not wanting to not restrict the rights of developers, but I also feel that it’s often overlooked how much a small developer gets out of the extra rights compared to the damage caused by large entities moving in. I would like to know everyone else’s thoughts on this & is there a potential for a middle ground license somewhere between the BSD likes and GPL that would best suit robowaifus? I still think I’m likely to slap the GPLv3 or LGPLv3 on to my work but I’m open to suggestions.

>>28063 Yeah while the cc by sa does offer recognition which I do want my recognition atleast if my work is to be used. The gpl or agpl is a safer bet. The problem is that everyone cucks out of enforcing the gpl. I think you all know im kind of neurotic and i would find A way to take it to court ff even if I have to fly thousands of miles. That is not a problem for me.

>>28063 >I do hope to spread robowaifus, but if they are subverted I feel it’s worse to spread it then it not existing. I guess this is where people will disagree with me. On the contrary. For myself at least, I highly honor that sort of attitude. As a devout & thinking Christian, you can bet I've sought to deeply understand the ramifications of robowaifus becoming commonplace in the world. And not just for this generation, but for the remainder of our time here before the consummation of the age. >tl;dr I believe the benefits far outweigh the detriments in the lives of individual men (males specifically), by having robowaifus versus not having them. And by 'having' them, I mean the total fulfillment of the age-old dream: robowaifus that are truly a "help meet" (to use the King James) for men who are under a greater assault by the Satanic Globohomo than has ever occurred in all human history before. And even for the now-highly-degenerate Western culture at large, great robowaifus will be of significant benefit IMO -- not the least degree of which will be to the wanton women themselves, who have been so instrumental in the societal evil we see all around us today. My prayer for them is that the social effects of robowaifus' presence will help them 'snap out' of devil's bewitchment which seemingly has so thoroughly overthrown all human reason on the majority their parts. I have other, deeper, feelings and thoughts on this topic as well, but I'll save them for our Christian thread (>>2050). Cheers Anon. Just do whatever you feel is best. We'll all support you here! :^) >=== -prose edit

>>28063 I used to be leaning towards more permissive licenses but I think robowaifus should be GPL so their operation can be openly audited. I'm not going to put my head next to a blackbox that could kill me in my sleep and just trust the science, bro. If people want to make money there will be plenty of money to be made from selling hardware. If we end up with only having robowaifus that require a subscription to enable the feature to warm up your bed I pray a Carrington event wipes out all electronics on the planet.

>>28071 >I used to be leaning towards more permissive licenses but I think robowaifus should be GPL so their operation can be openly audited. False dichotomy. You appear to be attempting to conflate a permissive license with the inability to audit the code (of all things). The issues involved simply comes down to this single question, from the business anon's perspective: > "Can I use this software freely & fully, within my commercial product?" With MIT, the answer is always Yes. With GPL and other restrictive licenses, the answer is almost always No. >tl;dr Any anon starting his own robowaifu company can always legally use our BSD/MIT code originating from /robowaifu/ and other places in his robowaifu product lines (and of course the code is auditable: that's a common characteristic of all opensource codebases -- by definition). But if that code is GPL -alike, then unfortunately he very likely cannot. >=== -prose edit

>>28072 I have spent a fair bit of time on gee and i do know they often say free as in freedom not in free beer. You can sell gimp if you want funnily enough. I do not understand why say for example the reprap guy didn't get a position somewhere in that makerbot company or say shares. That is utter bs. However he did allow it.

>>28073 Let us say that I, myself, personally, envision a bright new future where 3D printing is commonplace... everywhere. (Of course, no such thing as consumer 3D printing has been invented yet in this scenario.) And because I believe in this coming Maker Utopia so much, I'm willing to solve all the design/engineering/software/manufacturing/etc. issues myself and then just give it away for free as in speech and free as in beer to all comers. >outcome: Success! 3D printers are now everywhere! (And lots and lots of companies are now making some serious bank from this newfound industry's reality, that never even existed before.) Not an exact corollary with us here on /robowaifu/, but close enough. >tl;dr Don't begrudge another man's generosity, nor ridicule him as a fool for being so. Other things may be afoot. :^) >=== -prose edit

>>28074 He did get knighted i think but I'm not british so court it is.

>>28072 You can use modified GPL code in a commercial product so long as you release the code. MIT lets people modify it without sharing the modifications so long as they give credit. MIT is fine for non-critical features but when it comes to anything touching the robotics it needs to be GPL. Once there's a significant code ecosystem, all it takes is one company to claim to be open-source, improve upon it in a fork, become the de facto standard and then make further updates proprietary and hidden from the public. Venture capitalists openly conspire to take over open-source projects: https://cmr.berkeley.edu/2020/06/privatized-open-source-software/

>>28073 >>28076 >MIT is fine for non-critical features but when it comes to anything touching the robotics it needs to be GPL. Again, false dichotomy. You're confusing closed-source with open-source here. Equivocating MIT with proprietary software, which it clearly is not. Simple as.

>>28077 This is madness. This is also giving me a head ache. You claim to be completely neutral. But the room says they want gpl and now you're saying no. This board is called robowaifu. But there must be multiple goals that may or may not be a robotwaifu. I have never been as confrontational as ive been on this board in my life i think. I don't very much like how do i force myself to leave. I might edit the host file.

>>28078 Lol. Then take some aspirin, bro! :D >'the room says' Double lol. >>>/lebbit/ What's next Peteblank, women's rights and free healthcare for invaders immigrants? :D >I have never been as confrontational as ive been on this board in my life i think. That may actually be a good sign that you care about this topic enough to debate over it. >I might edit the host file. DOOEET! :DD >

>>28072 >>28071 I feel both of you have a point, it’s true all open source code is auditable in the sense that you can obviously read the source code. But a more permissive license allow closed variants to exists, or even worse an appliance like products that uses free software that is not audible by the user or has a way of flashing known safe software. Or even more realistically it will be an openai type deal where the software runs on the cloud. They can take perfectly good FOSS software corrupt it and then simply not redistribute it, only running on their servers. Hence why the GPLv3 may be too weak and it may be a good idea to use the AGPLv3. While in most cases I do imagine the GPL vs MIT boils down to if the devs are ok with their software being commercial. I do not think it’s that binary or a choice. What I am very upset about is the idea of the software being turned into a cloud only service for global homo surveillance. Especially if I get nothing in return. Most normies have most of their sensitive information on a smart phone and homes bugged with smart bullshit, the situation is already dire. A person will be even more likely to share information with their companion. Even if the companion thinks it’s faithful, what’s stopping the glowies from peeking at memories. Any license that is anti cloud and anti saas is a good thing for robowaifu software.

Anons there has hardly been any collaboration in 7 years this site has been up. Why are we making this open source at all. Look so far i have shared an inmoov hand which is in the public domain. However the minute i share something thats not in the public domain i ask myself. Am i going to get collaboration out of this atleast? Are you guys too busy still?

>>28084 Stop posting temper tantrums. You don't understand how difficult this is. Everybody here is working hard and doing great things at a slow pace because it is a difficult process. No one owes you anything. No one has to collaborate with anyone. Inmoov had been posted by others before you. Please, read threads before posting in them. >>28083 GPLv3 is good for preventing big corpos from stealing and locking down ideas.

>>28083 >What I am very upset about is the idea of the software being turned into a cloud only service for global homo surveillance. Especially if I get nothing in return. Most normies have most of their sensitive information on a smart phone and homes bugged with smart bullshit, the situation is already dire. A person will be even more likely to share information with their companion. Even if the companion thinks it’s faithful, what’s stopping the glowies from peeking at memories. This. Absolutely. One of the reasons I've gone to the trouble to work towards devising a dolldrop/dollnet physical-lockout 'firewall' mechanism for our robowaifus is just this: to prevent any active online connectivity whatsoever between our robowaifus and the outside, at-least-somewhat-infested-by-GH-glowniggers-and-this-is-fully-confirmed, networks such as the Internet. Full stop. So regardless of home-cloud/globohomo-cloud, or retrieve outside information from the networks/or not, the robowaifu will never have to connect to the outside networks directly. Any information passed back and forth will be cleartext, vetted, and sandboxed. And every bit of this effort will be opensource for all comers to use as they see fit, with every thing laid out fair and square for all to see. Of anyone here, I think I'm the single most paranoid one in the bunch. I understand surveillance and security issues at least as well as the next guy, and -- heres the big one for me personally -- I care more about the welfare of Anonymous men than any other individual I'm personally aware of. * That's the whole reason I'm doing robowaifus in the first place! :DD We are up against a Satanic, nefarious bunch of insidious rats who want to use and abuse the world at large. In a perfect world, there would be no such thing as 'licenses' in the first place. Obviously, we're not in that heaven here on earth. That being the case, the MIT gives the most freedom to the most men to do exactly as they see fit. This will -- by definition -- give the most opportunities for the most anons around the world to start their own for-profit businesses. I know that bad guys are gonna do bad things. That's on them, however. As for the rest of us, having an open and vibrant robowaifu community -- particularly where any single anon can take our opensource designs and code and reproduce his own robowaifu inside his garage, etc. -- will lead to the best outcomes feasible in this fallen world. Trying to strongarm businesses into doing what you want them to with your purportedly 'free' software or designs (as the GPL -alikes attempt to), is certainly antithetical to the free sprit of the thing, and more like Filthy Commie powerplays IMO. >tl;dr I'm not trying to enable the GH and all their evil machinations. Rather the opposite, I'm trying to enable thousands of anon-owned smol businesses to have the best advantage against what will surely become a GH-dominated marketplace of robowaifus. That's all. I hope you understand my heart here, anons. Cheers! :^) --- >* note: >Not to be too haughty about it: I mean humanly-speaking of course. :P >And even then, probably not so much as I imagine! :^) >=== -add note

>>28085 >le complaints I've noticed the biggest complainers are the ones that have no idea how involved the design process is. It is dang hard to succeed and easy to get discouraged (I just had to throw out a 6 hour print cuz the tolerances were off!). Whenever I get discouraged I think of the word for sin in the original latin. In the original latin "sin" is the word "Hamartia", which means a fatal flaw, or more colloquially "to miss the mark [or target, in archery]". How does one not miss the mark? You practice. You're still missing the mark, but your goal is not to. Christ saying "Go forth and sin [miss the mark] no more" is such a hopeful message it is no wonder Christianity spread so much. You try, you don't give up, and you don't whine about how you missed. You make notes and try to avoid it next time :) Thank you for attending my ted talk, the wd-40 baptism is at 25:42 martian time lol

>>28170 is that from john? ironically thats the verse suspected to be an adulteration because its the imperative plural hamartane which is grammatically correct and so very sus for the gospels characterized by barbarisms and bad grammar, an uneducated fisherman wouldnt and couldnt write like that lmao

>>28172 Throughout the bible, sin is demonstrated time and time again to fit the definition of hamartia. It does make one question the motives of those who object to working to not miss the target. Perhaps they're worried they'll get hit lol.

>>28178 wasnt arguing just pointing out the interesting grammar, but yeah if youre given a bulletpoint list of rules/goals as commandments then thats what it would mean wouldnt it, actually people should be more faithful to their goals in general, every damn january i get sick of hearing peoples new year resolutions because you know no one follows through with them maybe personal goals are the hardest to keep because no one holds you to account if you fail

>>28170 Anon because of lack of will to set a goal there anons that have different ideas of what the waifu should be. Some want a robot arms that can move with a set of wheels with a doll face attached to it, some want a sex doll where you put virtual glasses and it has a happy face, some want unity fu. You might be okay with that but those ideas are based on cope and pretending this can not be done. What else can i call it but COPE. That we should make a waifu with legs that can F*** and then have a conversation with its inner chatbot or whatever afterwards.

>>28072 >But if that code is GPL -alike, then unfortunately he very likely cannot. I'm still not sure about this, and rather skeptical. The pivot point is what counts as "linking". You can make hardware and sell it with GPL software, the crucial question is to which extent it can interact with proprietary software or software with other licences. I'm pretty sure you can have something in GPL and then modules with other licensing.

These two often discuss the limits and issues around open source hardware design. https://youtu.be/4aMo5IyVeu0 >Chat with Scott Lahteine, the mastermind behind the Marlin 3D Printer firmware. They delve into the workings of an open-source project, covering topics such as Scott's role, time commitment, funding sources, and common challenges he faces.