[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_kernel#Source_code_manag...
Maintaining that list would be a ton of work and edge cases tho :/
Original contributors are in charge of the distribution restriction.
The organization is purely operational and enforces distribution restrictions, per original authors’.
They can infiltrate the distribution org as much as they want, as long as the original author to org hand-off is legally constrained. The main puzzle is what is that legal mechanism, which may be nothing more than licensing.
Which basically means you can no longer use a computer, which in pratice should be a strong enough deterent.
It won't end well, and the adverse effects will disproportionately impact people without power, not the large companies you have in mind.
Software is already political. Commercial software traditionally does this through direct and indirect lobbying efforts. The DMCA didn't just spontaneously appear out of thin air. There must be action-for-action retaliation.
I'm not sure how viable it is - the GPL is hack on top of copyright - but the DMCA is an extension on top of copyright too (however ill advised).
Just saying that there is precedent for licenses being used to protect against overreaching "IP" laws.
[1] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#v3PatentRetaliatio...
'The BipCot NoGov License allows any use of software, media, products or services EXCEPT by governments. The BipCot NoGov License threatens no “government guns” for violators. It is not copyright-based, it is entirely shame-based.'
Text of version 1.2 of the license:
https://bipcot.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/BipCotNoGovSof...
All we've really ended up doing is fragmenting the internet more.
1) The source is viewable (regardless of license)
2) The source is licensed under an OSI-approved license [1] (and thus also viewable)
There other definitions that I've seen as well, but I think these two are the main ones in play here.
It's clear to me from the context that slooonz is using the 2nd definition, but it's also clear from the disagreement that others are using the 1st definition (or one close to it).
Down thread [0], another user linked a page from the FSF [2]. It says:
>The official definition of “open source software” (which is published by the Open Source Initiative and is too long to include here) was derived indirectly from our criteria for free software. It is not the same; it is a little looser in some respects. Nonetheless, their definition agrees with our definition in most cases.
>However, the obvious meaning for the expression “open source software”—and the one most people seem to think it means—is “You can look at the source code.” That criterion is much weaker than the free software definition, much weaker also than the official definition of open source. It includes many programs that are neither free nor open source.
>Since the obvious meaning for “open source” is not the meaning that its advocates intend, the result is that most people misunderstand the term.
So I think the disagreements come from not defining Open Source in the same way.
And for the record, I agree (using definition 2 from above) that adding a clause to the license to restrict who can use the software would make it no longer Open Source per OSI's definition [3]:
> 5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups
> The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons.
> 6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor
>The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24882631
[1] https://opensource.org/licenses
[2] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....
This is a model I have started to seriously consider due to increasingly prolific IP theft concerns. There is software that is so capable that it could be considered a weapons platform from some perspectives. I really worry about this stuff in context of China/Russia/India/et.al. and our willingness to relinquish our various competitive advantages.
We can convert it to audio, maybe using dialup-like FSK/PSK, and we can even upload it to YouTube with a spiffy bit of 'cover-art!'
That way, whenever anyone needs a copy of ImageMagick, they can just download the vi-- Oh.
JPEG image of Shakespeare which is also a zip file containing his complete works
Use Pillow to read the pixels from each file, and write the RGB values to a new file. Then use the gzip library to uncompress that and create a TAR file. Then I just viewed the TAR file in The V File Viewer.
I stopped there because that was enough to show that it worked. I have ImageMagick installed somewhere, but this was more fun.
Generally, it pulls down the HTML page for a site, parses it, and uses the results to pull down the video. The extractor for youtube itself is the most complex one, but there are plenty of others.
Last time I checked it had extractors for something like 700 different sites, along with a generic one that works on a bunch of sites. In general, you can just point it at any video page you see online and have a fairly high chance of it doing the right thing.
