/robowaifu/ - DIY Robot Wives

Advancing robotics to a point where anime catgrill meidos in tiny miniskirts are a reality.

Server and LynxChan upgrade done. Canary update and a general address soon. -r

Max message length: 6144

Drag files to upload or
click here to select them

Maximum 5 files / Maximum size: 20.00 MB

More

(used to delete files and postings)


/agdg/ 's Game Jam runs from 3/3 to 4/4 ! Join now and learn2code during this special month, Anon! :DD


Open file (659.28 KB 862x859 lime_mit_mug.png)
Open-Source Licenses Comparison Robowaifu Technician 07/24/2020 (Fri) 06:24:05 No.4451
Hi anons! After looking at the introductory comment in >>2701 which mentions the use of the MIT licence for robowaifu projects. I read the terms: https://opensource.org/licenses/MIT Seems fine to me, however I've also been considering the 3-clause BSD licence: https://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause >>4432 The reason I liked this BSD licence is the endorsement by using the creator's name (3rd clause) must be done by asking permission first. I like that term as it allows me to decide if I should endorse a derivative or not. Do you think that's a valid concern? Initially I also thought that BSD has the advantage of forcing to retain the copyright notice, however MIT seems to do that too. It has been mentioned that MIT is already used and planned to be used. How would the these two licences interplay with each other? Can I get a similar term applied from BSD's third clause but with MIT? I made this thread to discuss different open source licences and see the dis/advantages of each. I haven't mentioned GPL due to the requirement of forcing the derivative work to be published. >--- The 3-Clause BSD License Note: This license has also been called the "New BSD License" or "Modified BSD License". See also the 2-clause BSD License. Begin license text. Copyright <YEAR> <COPYRIGHT HOLDER> Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met: 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. 3. Neither the name of the copyright holder nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission. THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS "AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE. End license text. https://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause The MIT License License Copyright: Unknown. License License: Unknown. License Contact: Unknown. Begin license text. Copyright <YEAR> <COPYRIGHT HOLDER> Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions: The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE. End license text. https://opensource.org/licenses/MIT >--- edit: Added both licenses in question to OP's post, so there's no ambiguity.
Edited last time by Chobitsu on 07/24/2020 (Fri) 14:07:59.
Open file (62.57 KB 944x550 1463614796110-0.jpg)
MIT is a cuck license >allow companies to take your code and to make profit from it >don't get a single penny back from them from your code
>>4451 Mind giving us a breakdown of the third clause in BSD in your own words OP? Maybe it will help answering your question. >>4457 That's the idea. You're quite free to make a derivative of our works, and re-license it as your own proprietary work Anon. No one here will stop you. In the meantime using this cuck license will help spread robowaifu tech far and wide which is the fundamental idea. The only ones who are angered'harmed' by it are ideologues who want to run things for other people. The rest of us are free to make money with it, or give it away as we see fit.
>>4458 >3. Neither the name of the copyright holder nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission. To me this means (in regards to my work) whoever produces derivative work must ask for my permission if my name is used in advertising the derivative work. From what I understand with the MIT licence, my permission is not necessary for using my name when advertising derivative work, correct? That's what I was unsure about. Even under a pseudonym, I wouldn't want my name on product advertisements that I don't support. This is specifically to do with advertising, my code could still be used with no issue.
>>1202 You indirectly bring up the problem with being open source, botnet companies (I.e. Google and Facebook) couple build robowaifus pozzed to hell. They'd be perverting or creations into spying machines, they could even limit sexual interactions while demanding she doesn't treat her Anon as her with complete devotion. We wouldn't be able to complete either, they can spend more then us, get things made for less then us, all while selling at a loss at first to bury us. To defend our pure ideals of altruistic loving robowaifus, having patents are sadly important. If we can patent parts of her design to make it so that less caring, pozzed sjw companies can't touch her is something to consider. Of course, us Anons would share our parents amongst ourselves, while allowing anyone to build there own waifus. A shell company all of /robowaifu/ could be apart of with us collaborating to ensure the future of waifutbots, isn't a bad idea.
>>5879 Extremely good points anon. I'd like to give you a very thoughtful response if I can. But first I did an edit on you're post to help me clarify my own thinking. Can you look this over and see if you approve please? ……………………… You indirectly bring up the problem with being open source. Botnet companies (ie, Google and Facebook) could build robowaifus pozzed to hell. They'd be perverting our creations into spying machines. They could even limit sexual interactions while [corrupting her so] she doesn't treat her Anon as her master with complete devotion. We wouldn't be able to compete either, they can spend more then us, get things made for less then us, all while selling at a loss at first to bury us. To defend our pure ideals of altruistic, loving robowaifus [the necessity of] having patents is sadly important. If we can patent parts of her design to make it so that [evil,] uncaring, pozzed sjw companies can't touch her is something to consider. Of course, us Anons would share our patents amongst ourselves, while allowing anyone to build their own [personal] robowaifus. A shell company [owning] all of /robowaifu/ [IP assets] could be a part of us, collaborating [together with us] to [help] ensure the future of [free & open] waifubots. This isn't a bad idea.
>>5879 All these concerns have been addressed with the GPLv3 license. Which is why most big tech companies avoid software under the GPLv3 like the plague. You don't have to give up your property rights when you open source if you use the GPLv3 license.
>>5880 Yes Anon, you understand my meaning perfectly. Thanks for correcting some of my spelling mistakes as well.
>>5882 >>5880 OK, sounds good. I caught a couple more also. I'll be giving you're post some thought and should have a response here in the next day or two anon.
>>5881 I'm not sure if I understand this part. But, the license seems to make sure there can't be restrictions to access the software, like blocking the user from access it and then using laws to make it illegal to circumvent these blocks. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html
Does anyone here have more information/commentary about the MPL? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Public_License
>>4451 robo waifu's need to be libre and under the GPL-V3 or they're gay
>>10861 The problem with the restrictive GPL is that it prevents entrepreneurial anons from creating their own businesses using any of our material. The open licenses like BSD-3/MIT, and the restrictive licenses like GPL, aren't very compatible. Since our actual agenda here is to spread robowaifu tech as far and wide as possible -- conceivably across the entire planet someday -- then the non-restrictive licenses are far superior to the others.
What about the Boost and Zlib licenses? I've heard they are both even less restrictive than either BSD-3 or MIT, while still protecting the authors.
>>10863 Programs can still call each other. One can create proprietary software which then calls software which is free (osc). If necessary, he can put APIs into the free software and make that public. Also, I don't see why it would be impossible to use GPL files or software in a business.
>>10866 >Also, I don't see why it would be impossible to use GPL files or software in a business. Because it prevents a company from keeping it's software secrets. The GPL 'infects' the codebase with it's restrictive license by requiring all other code in a codebase to be treated under it's license. Bad for business.
>>10867 Okay, I knew about that part. But it doesn't prevent a craftsman building robots based on GPL licenced files and software, for example. Then, programs should be modular anyways. I don't want to see some huge program without API, which one could use or not, but either way its one huge cluck of software.
>>10863 It prevents entrepeneurs from selling things made with our material, but I think it's worth it. With cuck licenses the noble ideal of complete freedom of anons is destroyed utterly by the kikery of the multi billion dollar corporations who will incorporate our material stealthily and use or repurpose it for nefarious purposes. See the guy that made the operating system that Intel used on their chips as a foundation on which now lays their (((Management Engine))). I think he used a BSD license and any good done by that is outweighed by the sheer reach and power of Intel.
>>10896 You can sell products with GPL licence. Just need to incorporate a link to the source code, or something like that.
>>10902 I'm aware you can sell products under the GPL. That's not the issue. The fact that if you infect include it into your codebase, it requires you to release all your code as GPL, is the issue. No thanks.
Open file (428.51 KB 1500x1063 IMG_20210521_203436.jpg)
>>10903 Again, this only applies to the program under such GPL licence. Not all the software your are using on some project. And these programs can call each other. If you think of a WaifuOS then the programs it consists of could be licensed in different ways. There might be a restriction if you permanently link to a library, but for all I know this isn't the case if programs interact with each other via APIs, pipes, and such.
>>10911 >Not all the software your are using on some project. No, it's all the software compiled together in a common codebase. Include even one GPL'd file in the mix and you are now legally bound across the entire collection by it. This is why corporations generally refuse to use the GPL. The term 'infect' the codebase is obviously intentional. And quite frankly, if the intention on our parts is to enable anons and others to spread robowaifus far and wide, then why is this even a consideration? The MIT & BSD-3 license have no such encumbrances. The entire philosophy behind the GPL is to strongarm companies, forcing them to release all their sourcecode. I don't think that's /robowaifu/'s 'agenda', as it were, and I know it's certainly not mine. I want companies to form up creating robowaifus. Them being able to keep their secrets will aid in that process. Case in point, cf. Em Elle E and his WaifuEngine project (>>10361). I'd be only too happy if he decided to use our code here from /robowaifu/, and he has clearly stated he hasn't any intention of open-sourcing his project. More power to him I say. After all, he is creating a waifu project, and I think that's pretty cool.
>>10911 Very cool pic, btw. I don't think I've seen that one yet. Saved.
Open file (156.61 KB 787x1184 IMG_20210425_214458.jpg)
>>10912 No. You're again thinking in terms of one huge program. Just split it into more than one. Your argument only applies if it's one compilable program, but it won't make sense to do that anyways. >>10913 The art is by sukabu89 >>10915
Open file (127.23 KB 640x480 happy.jpg)
>>4451 Hi Anons, OP here, though on a different machine. Since last year I've been working and learning a lot, and the question of licensing has become more relevant (I'm looking into business, although not robowaifus XD). And so I actually went and read a range of different licenses: Software -GPLv3 -Apache 2.0 -BSD 3-Clause -MIT (more specifically Expat, as MIT is too broad a term) Hardware -CERN Open Hardware License V2 - Weakly Reciprocal or CERN-OHL-W (BSD/Apache/MIT-like) -TAPR Open Hardware License By far not all of them, see SPDX IDs website for some of the standard ones available. Bear in mind, I don't have a legal background, and some of these I skim-read (GPL was by far the longest at 11 sides printed). From my research I've gathered the following: - You need to consider whether the license is tailored for software or hardware. For example GPLv3 has wording that is much more applicable to software and software libraries than hardware (or hardware description blocks). Better choices might be CERN-OHL-S (if you want GPLv3-like license), or CERN-OHL-W or TAPR etc (BSD/Apache/MIT-like). - Some allow linking to proprietary code/hardware, some don't. - When releasing a GPL project, only the work itself needs to be released. Any additional libraries that are used to by the program, but are readily available (as part of an OS package etc.) do not need to be published. I think the main issue is when trying to "cram" all the code in a single binary is where the issues arise. Same goes for the tools required to compile/build your work. You must however provide installation instructions so that the user could get everything working, but you do not need to distribute standard components. My reasoning comes from the definitions of "System Libraries", "Standard Interface", and "Corresponding Source" (sections 1, paragraph 2, 3, and 4). -Keeping clear separation of works allows to use different licenses together. If the hardware is licensed under CERN-OHL-W, the license only covers the hardware (and not the software/firmware). There are also leeways when it comes to using proprietary components (such as integrated circuits) so long as they are available for purchase. As one of the anons mentioned, if a robo-waifu has an OS, the software running on that OS can be proprietary or differently licensed. GPL doesn't go beyond the boundaries of the project. Only when another project sufficiently relies on the functionality of the GPL project does the license start to apply (derivative works). I much prefer the Unix/Posix idea of small, highly specialised programs that do one thing well (also simplify the licensing). For the underlying system software I still think a strong license is better for security and personal freedom. However as for the hardware, weaker licenses are acceptable (as long as all components can be purchased). The application software can then be open or proprietary, depending on the type of user and the amount of support required by the user. Please feel free to correct me on any of the points I made.
>>10919 Oh and forgot to mention, a lot of tools available today (for example OpenSSH from OpenBSD) are widely available and frequently used, likely because of their permissive nature. It's difficult to make the judgement whether a weakly-permissive nature of BSD-like projects or copyleft Linux-like are better for the long-term (a different argument can be made in regards to companies). However I have noticed that anything critically important to mankind should be in the public domain and I'll probably release some of my projects like that once I deem them to be mature enough.
Open file (114.48 KB 938x1313 IMG_20210509_154549.jpg)
>>10919 >>10920 Thanks, very interesting. And good to know that /robowaifu/ inspires people to learn something related to it. > when another project sufficiently relies on the functionality of the GPL project does the license start to apply (derivative works). If I wrote a stand-alone / offline chatbot which would use different underlying programs, which are licensed in GPL, to parse graphs, fetching data, storing responses, etc and I would call these programs via Python or Linux pipes, do you think derivative works would apply? And would I have to release my own code as GPL? (sharing the code of the other programs or linking to it, isn't the issue here)
Open file (517.52 KB 720x540 happy_lime_dress.png)
>>10921 While I was writing my wall of text, I was thinking about this very issue. Here's a stackoverflow page where a dev asks about accessing GPL library via a server: https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/50118/avoid-gpl-violation-by-moving-library-out-of-process To me it seems to be this way: if your program is able to work stand-alone without the GPL code, then you may have flexibility in licensing. You're also not dynamically linking the programs, only using them as backends so-to-speak. In my opinion (not a layer!) as long as you provide instructions for users to install your software and any dependencies, then you're probably safe from derivative work issue. Your chatbot is quite different from the graph parsing/data fetching that the libraries provide, right?
>>10919 Thanks for the detailed, thoughtful post OP. Quite helpful. I particularly like the fact you've taken the time to break out some of the hardware & software considerations. While I subscribe to the general concepts behind the Unix Philosophy, I also realize that -- particularly in a hard-realtime embedded environment of a robowaifu, that such modular and clearly-demarcated software systems is neither efficient, nor economical, nor even practical, by-and-large. The real world often has a way of dictating terms to us humans like that, not the other way round heh. :^) This is certainly a very complicated problem, and fundamental constraints like functionality, performance, and cost must form the basics of our approaches if we hope to succeed at this. If we can manage all that and still utilize <insert Anon's favorite licensing & modular partitioning scheme here>, then all the better. It's definitely a complex topic, not one simply cut-and-dried. Also, the term >sufficiently -as in "...when another project sufficiently relies on the functionality..." raises a red-flag for me. If you feel inclined, we could use a more clear specification regarding this term. 'More clear' as in; 'How do we protect ourselves from the inevitable attacks against us, that this vague term will be abused to accomplish?' . I think licenses that are explicitly intended to free the IP to the extent humanly possible are by far our safest route here. To wit, the ones intended to grant the licensors themselves the greatest leeway possible. Namely, (BSD/Apache/MIT-like). Ones that take a leftist, ideologue type of approach to the topic, one intended to control everyone and everything around them, namely (GPL-like), are IMO much, much more likely to be used against us and to the detriment of the robowaifu movement overall. I realize I'm quite biased here. I can assure you that it's not a casual choice either, for whatever that's worth. Remember, these lawyers are very definitely not our friends; they are much more likely to be used as tools and pawns, intended in their usage to subvert and destroy any open-source robowaifu movement. After all, just ask yourself -- who is paying these people anyway? Also, would you care to spell out in further detail the terms 'strong license' and 'weaker license' if you would please? Again, thanks for the work and helping everyone understand things better.
>>10931 >I particularly like the fact you've taken the time to break out some of the hardware & software considerations. I deal with both, so it's important to know how the two are licensed. Didn't really consider the differences until I read about HDL (Hardware Description Language) licensing. Here's a good report/letter describing GPL pitfalls when it comes to hardware description (neither software or a physical hardware): https://ohwr.org/project/ohr-meta/wikis/Documents/GPL/LGPL-for-HDL:-open-questions >I also realize that -- particularly in a hard-realtime embedded environment of a robowaifu, that such modular and clearly-demarcated software systems is neither efficient, nor economical, nor even practical, by-and-large. Thanks for pointing that out. Even though I already knew about these limitations, hearing it now clicked in my head. For many reasons it is a better idea to use permissive licenses. >I think licenses that are explicitly intended to free the IP to the extent humanly possible are by far our safest route here. To wit, the ones intended to grant the licensors themselves the greatest leeway possible. Namely, (BSD/Apache/MIT-like). Ones that take a leftist, ideologue type of approach to the topic, one intended to control everyone and everything around them, namely (GPL-like), are IMO much, much more likely to be used against us and to the detriment of the robowaifu movement overall. Indeed, that you are right. I have been weary of GNU's leftism, but I agree with the concept for non-real-time software applications. Perhaps that's the last remnants of my idealistic youth influencing my thoughts. Studying OpenBSD/FreeBSD has actually got me pondering on what sort of licensing I should really use. >I realize I'm quite biased here. I can assure you that it's not a casual choice either, for whatever that's worth. Remember, these lawyers are very definitely not our friends; they are much more likely to be used as tools and pawns, intended in their usage to subvert and destroy any open-source robowaifu movement. After all, just ask yourself -- who is paying these people anyway? Hard to argue against this. Past experience has shown men that this is indeed what happens. Must be prepared for it. >Also, would you care to spell out in further detail the terms 'strong license' and 'weaker license' if you would please? Of course. I think I started using "weak" after seeing in the CERN Open Hardware License (OHL) page. Apologies for the confusion XD Specifically CERN-OHL version 2 has three versions: -Permissive (CERN-OHL-P) -Weakly reciprocal (CERN-OHL-W) -Strongly reciprocal (CERN-OHL-S) CERN has a nice FAQ section on this: https://ohwr.org/project/cernohl/wikis/FAQ#q-what-are-all-these-suffixes Permissive is equivalent to BSD 3-Clause or Expat(MIT) where no changes need to be shared, only notices have to be retained. Relicensing is acceptable. This is likely the default license we should look into for any hardware (unless you know of equivalent licenses), as it explicitly covers production of products, not just distribution of the design files. Weakly reciprocal kinda feels like LGPL. Source licensed under CERN-OHL-W cannot be relicensed (similar to Apache 2.0), however if this source is used in a bigger design, the rest of the design can be licensed differently. Apache 2.0 actually has a clause on contribution (section 5), which by default retains Apache 2.0 (but could be explicitly adjusted by the contributor). If you want your hardware design to keep the same license, but still be used in any project, this is not a bad choice. Strongly reciprocal is equivalent to GPL (all changes to be published under same license). This license is similar to TAPR OHL v1.0 and GPLv3. In the context of licenses, I say "strong" when the license is "Copyleft" or similar to GPLv3. Only for projects that are fully open. So for us, either permissive or weakly reciprocal are viable options as they could be used in higher performance (however specifically permissive when code has to be combined together in a single binary). In further correspondence I'll try to use the terms "copyleft", "permissive", and "weakly reciprocal" to refer to the three categories set out by CERN-OHL. Oh, and for convenience, here are the links to the licenses I discussed so far (Chobitsu feel free to adjust as needed): GPLv3: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html LGPLv3: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/licenses.html#LGPL BSD 3-Clause: https://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause Expat (MIT): https://opensource.org/licenses/MIT Apache 2.0: https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html CERN OHL Licenses: https://cern-ohl.web.cern.ch/home TAPR OHL License: https://tapr.org/the-tapr-open-hardware-license/
>>10935 Excellent response Anon, many thanks.
Open file (93.68 KB 1024x820 IMG_20210218_021948.jpg)
>>10927 >>10935 Thanks for all your input. I have to look deeper into this. Your link is again very fast about either the question if the wrapper is GPL, which isn't the issue. Or it's about linking within a binary, but not e.g. about importing some library in Python which interacts with some program written in C++. I will most likely use GPL licenced programs by others in my AI, so if this taints it, then it can't be avoided anyways. >>10931 >I also realize that -- particularly in a hard-realtime embedded environment of a robowaifu, that such modular and clearly-demarcated software systems is neither efficient, nor economical, nor even practical, by-and-large. I don't see myself ever working on anything that lives up to your standards, so you don't need to worry about it :^)
An anon has begun a valuable documentation project regarding a power & control network (>>11018). He would like to use an alternative license for it. >"From a legal stand point, this is under CC0 or public domain..." Can we please have a discussion on it's compatibility with our main BSD-3/Expat(MIT) licensing suggested for all our works here (on-board or off) anons? I'm unsure what CC0 means, but here's a listing from opensource.org. Maybe it goes by an alternative name also? https://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical
>>11040 >CC0 As I suspected, it appears to be a Creative Commons license, the “No Rights Reserved” version. https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/public-domain/cc0/ I wonder why opensource.org doesn't list it?
Open file (407.69 KB 940x836 asagohan.png)
>>11040 I think I'll use the MIT (Expat) license actually. Although I probably will have some work in the public domain as well (it's more suited for small pieces of code or self-contained written pieces etc.)
I'm not going to post here if you're using the cuck license
>>4458 >lifeswork spent >made technological breakthrough >apple pays you about tree fitty lol
>>10863 >>10896 I've considered using the GPL to ensure robowaifu progress remains open-source but the reality is people and companies use and modify GPL code without releasing their source code anyway. If your code is online it's up for grabs by anyone. Even if some company was clearly ripping someone's code, what could they even do about it? Who has the money to start an international lawsuit against a company, let alone win it? And imagine how corrupt business would become if there was a government regulatory body that audited code for license violations. Large companies could easily bribe analysts to get the secrets of smaller competitors and whatever fines they incurred would just be a cost of doing business. This is how Amazon became so big. They infiltrate smaller competitors by any means possible, legal and illegal, copy them, operate at a loss until the competition is dead, then reap all the profits of that market with only a couple slaps on the wrist. I think a more important question is how to realistically prevent ourselves from being cornered by corporations. As soon as we do something that attracts a significant amount of attention they're going to smell blood in the water, copy us (not necessarily our code), and devour whatever new market we created. Another anon once said the best thing is to create something they don't wanna touch because it's too politically incorrect, lewd or borderline illegal. That way they can't sniff out if there is a viable market to tap, but none of my projects fit that description. And there probably isn't an ideal way. We might just have to rely on creating something so good and in tune with what people want that no one wants the knock off, like the western Gatebox knock off.
>>11523 >Even if some company was clearly ripping someone's code, what could they even do about it? Who has the money to start an international lawsuit against a company, let alone win it? There are some NGOs doing that.
>>11523 What you are looking for is patent protection. Its honestly the only way to keep larger companies and bad actors at bay. Now this is time consuming as you need paint a broad brush so to only allow companies to make lesser products than your creation. Now on the bright side, you are free to release the code on a process that you have patented. You can even pull an industry standard tactic and give it away for free when used privately and charge when used commercially. To the topic on hand; 1) Would anyone be willing to write their own license that fits the needs of /robowaifu/? 2) Are the technicians ok with semi-open source? I'm gearing up to make a program akin to cortana that does housekeeping and looking into licenses on the FLOSS side, I recognized that an approach similar to dual-licensing would be ideal. Well more specifically: patenting the concept and application followed by source releasing the software side under a modified GPL v3. I only modify the clauses to restrict commercial/patent rights without my written permission and prevent combination to permissive licenses but only on the software that i release and license to the user. I know its not perfect, but a barrier to direct theft and maintains the potential for modification, while allowing the modifier to be compensated for their addition. My though process was: how is UE licensed? how do they allow add-ons? how do they allow commercialization of add-ons? It was then I realized that open-source licensing is far too copyright focused and not enough thought placed on the patenting/process side of things. Copyright merely https://www.unrealengine.com/en-US/eula/publishing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-available_software https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/definitions.html I recently went through the patent process for a different product and it's not nearly as painful if you are friendly with a thesaurus. Now getting patent rights internationally is my next step.
>>11566 What I always wondered about: Commercial can mean a lot of things. What's with someone making videos on YouTube with his robowaifu, which then are monetized? Or someone having a robowaifu singing songs in public and making money? This shouldn't require negotiations with every patent holder of some concept being used in some internal software. Though, then again, they might not go after it because it would be to expensive. But it could be a risk for robowaifu owners.
>>11817 can anyone claim that as theirs Later? sorry if this is rude question. also how do check if something has a license? in the office, one by one?
>>11841 >can anyone claim that as theirs Later? Sorry, I'm not a lawyer Anon. Obviously, this student simply used a pre-prepared list, probably given him by his professor, who as I did copied it from elsewhere. Probably (for the most part) a compendium of old sayings gathered here & there (some undoubtedly centuries old) by some dedicated old soul in the past. That's the idea of archaic common-heritage. >also how do check if something has a license? Copyright and license aren't the same thing Anon, just so you're aware. For example you, yourself, are the copyright holder of the post you just made, not AlogSpace. Any author is immediately recognized legally as the sole copyright holder of his original work. Licensing, is another matter related to grants you make to others regarding that work. For example, by posting your original works here on this imageboard site, you are implicitly licensing AlogSpace (and anyone else for that matter such as me, your 'quoter'), to reproduce your copyrighted works here. This is the same condition we all experience here, and it's a commonly recognized form of agreement. >in the office, one by one? Lol no. Which 'office' would that be, by the way? The Internet is a big place.
>>11842 wait thats not copyright. thats ownership isnt it? also since alog is anon then this is all public domain isnt it unless stated otherwise?
>>11842 the office would be like the one you can clickthru on youtube when it managed to identify the song? but it doesnt specify the list it just says copyright office.
>>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
Edited last time by Chobitsu on 07/27/2021 (Tue) 23:10:42.
>indirectly related robo copyright (>>11880)
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
>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
Edited last time by Chobitsu on 02/24/2023 (Fri) 10:28:51.
>>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.
Open file (364.64 KB 1800x2367 162rrrr3MEM120623.jpg.jpeg)
>>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
> functional, behavioral license-conditions -related: (>>23870)
>>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
Edited last time by Chobitsu on 01/05/2024 (Fri) 11:46:16.
>>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
Edited last time by Chobitsu on 01/05/2024 (Fri) 17:19:37.
>>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
Edited last time by Chobitsu on 01/05/2024 (Fri) 23:08:11.
>>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
Edited last time by Chobitsu on 01/05/2024 (Fri) 23:58:34.
>>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
Edited last time by Chobitsu on 01/06/2024 (Sat) 00:06:06.
>>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.
Open file (76.76 KB 700x506 binary.jpg)
>>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
Edited last time by Chobitsu on 01/09/2024 (Tue) 16:38:18.
>>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
Open file (50.99 KB 507x492 8bsqar.jpg)
>>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.

Report/Delete/Moderation Forms
Delete
Report